import_api_dump

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only give the safety profile (writes, idempotent, not destructive); the description adds substantial context beyond them: writes go only to the per-user data folder and never the game folder, dumps of different subtrees are merged, a new engine version replaces the old index with a backup kept, and dry_run writes nothing. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail an agent needs for a mutating import.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and subsequent sentences each add a distinct behavioral fact. The opening sentence is dense with several parenthetical clauses, but nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex 8-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers source selection, the diff report contents (added/removed/changed paths, unexplored subtrees), write targets, and partial-dump handling. It is largely complete, with the remaining gap being the four undocumented parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only explains which (log_prev.txt), file (explicit file), dry_run, and allow_partial. The other four parameters (limit, reset, space, dump_id) are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States specific verbs and resources: parses WSDUMP lines, builds the live API index, and reports a diff against the bundled WSUS index. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like api_index_status (status only) and api_dump_script (script generation), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operational conditions: which source to use (gen/log.txt, which='log_prev.txt', or explicit file), that dry_run=true writes nothing, and that a dump without END is refused unless allow_partial=true. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over siblings like api_index_status or api_dump_script, so no explicit alternatives/exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.