import_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add a meaningful behavioral detail: 'Validates Python syntax before import.' However, it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting behavior, failure semantics, or required permissions beyond what the schema parameters imply, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the primary action and source/destination, the second states a key behavioral guarantee. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema) and 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for an import action. It conveys the essential 'Git format' input and validation step, though it could elaborate on what happens on validation failure or how update_existing interacts. Still, it adds enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the 'Git format' and validation context, which is tangential to the parameters themselves. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool imports a script to GIMS from Git format, with a specific verb+resource+source/destination. It differentiates from alternatives like create_script (creation from scratch) and import_datasource_type/import_activator_type (different resource types) by naming the resource and format.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to bring a script into GIMS from Git format. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the mention of 'Git format' and validation provides clear context for a specific use case, and sibling tool names naturally distinguish other import targets.

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