Import project

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description essentially restates that with 'Replace'. It adds that the source is an exported JSON document, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as irreversibility, potential loss of unsaved changes, or validation behavior.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter tool with good annotation coverage, the description adequately covers purpose and input. It doesn't explain error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the simplicity and annotations.

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%, and the description explicitly clarifies that the 'json' parameter is the exported project JSON document. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema (string, minLength 2), even though it doesn't detail the JSON structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') with a clear resource ('current project') and source ('exported project JSON document'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like export_project or new_project by indicating it replaces the existing project with an imported one.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need to replace the current project with an exported JSON document. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., set_project) nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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