Import Shortcut

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

Annotations indicate write (not read-only), non-destructive, non-idempotent, and not open-world. The description adds 'import' which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing shortcuts, error handling for invalid files). With annotations already covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate; no contradiction.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it quickly scannable.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and available annotations, the description is adequate but lacks detail on return values or success/failure behavior. No output schema exists, so the description could note that successful import returns a shortcut identifier or confirmation. With sibling tools and no output schema, a score of 3 reflects minimal completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'filePath' ('Path to the .shortcut file to import'). The tool description adds no further clarification (e.g., file format requirements, path types). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameter.

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 action ('Import') and the resource ('.shortcut file into Siri Shortcuts'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_shortcut' (creates from scratch) and 'export_shortcut' (exports to file), as import is a specific file-based operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence), potential conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or exclusions. Among many sibling tools (e.g., create_shortcut, run_shortcut), better differentiation is needed.

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