project_import

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool writes without asking, that dryRun previews the plan, that force destroys/overwrites an existing service.json, and that the first run needs network access to fetch the pinned npm importer. It also states the return shape (data.written and importer output). This is exactly the safety and behavior context an agent needs.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and uses three tight sentences, each adding safety or execution-relevant context. The first sentence is dense with parenthetical detail but remains purposeful.

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 destructive, network-dependent operation with no output schema, the description covers the write behavior, preview mechanism, overwrite risk, network requirement, return values, and project path need. Little relevant context is missing.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description reinforces dryRun and force semantics and explains when projectPath is needed, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: importing services from a directory's root docker-compose.yml into service.json files. It names the underlying command (`flisk import --json`), which makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like project_init or config_regenerate.

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?

It gives concrete usage conditions: use dryRun to get the plan only, force to overwrite an existing service.json, and projectPath when the MCP server is not running from the project root. There are no explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' exclusions, but the operational guidance is clear.

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