research_import_analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, broken out as a write operation, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the 64 MiB input cap and the explicit security boundary that importing does not grant read access to local paths referenced inside the JSON. It still omits failure behavior or whether an existing analysis is replaced, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

One front-loaded sentence led by the action and resource, with the size limit and security caveat appended in priority order. No filler text; the single-sentence structure is efficient, though the security clause is slightly dense.

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 2-parameter write tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the input size ceiling, and a key security boundary. It leaves unclear what the call returns or how it interacts with an existing study's data, which for an import/mutation tool is a notable remaining gap.

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 50%: study_id is documented in the schema ('研究 ID，由 research_create 返回') but path has no description. The description partially compensates by implying path is a user-selected file ('用户选择的完整...JSON') subject to the 64 MiB limit, but adds no format, path-syntax, or boundary details.

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 a specific verb (导入/import) and a well-scoped resource (完整兼容的 JavaScript 分析 Evidence JSON), plus a concrete size bound of 64 MiB. The described resource is distinct enough from research_import_document and research_add_evidence, though it never names those siblings to disambiguate explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as research_import_document or research_add_evidence. The only conditional statement is a security caveat about what import does not authorize, which is a behavioral constraint rather than usage guidance.

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