ioc_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the import loads the file and normalises it through a save. That adds useful behavioral context, but it does not cover side effects such as overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or error handling.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The essential action and scoping detail are communicated immediately.

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 low-complexity import tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation. However, because annotations are absent, it should say more about side effects, failure modes, or expected outcomes to be fully complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's 'Path to the .ioc' and 'Project name' descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: importing an external .ioc file as a new project. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as project_import_config, project_create, or project_open.

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 phrase 'as a new project' implies the tool is for importing an external .ioc into a fresh project, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus project_open, project_create, or project_import_config.

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