Import Ontology

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — matching tables and columns by name — which hints at how the document is reconciled against the scan. It does not say what happens on unmatched or renamed objects, whether existing terms are overwritten, or whether it partially applies on error.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical carries real information rather than noise, though the sentence is dense enough that the matching semantics are easy to miss.

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?

With an output schema, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description need not explain returns or safety. However, for a mutation that applies an exported document over a scanned datasource, the description omits the conflict/overwrite outcome and the preconditions (scanned datasource, single-datasource default), which are the details an agent most needs.

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 description coverage is 100% and the datasource parameter's optionality is documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the indirect note that the document should match by name, which does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Apply') and resource ('an exported document') against a target ('a scanned datasource'), and the mention of 'exported document' implicitly ties it to the export_ontology sibling as its inverse. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with export_ontology.

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 only implied: the document must have been produced by export_ontology and the target must already be a scanned datasource. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement of prerequisites (e.g. datasource must be scanned first), leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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