IMD import repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does notable work: it flags the tool as experimental/unstable, warns about warranty, and discloses the return payload (repoUrl + baseCommit). It doesn't mention auth requirements, rate limits, or idempotency for this mutating POST, so it stops short of 5.

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 content is roughly one compact block, but 'Experimental: Experimental' is a duplicated token and the disclaimer text is front-loaded ahead of the actual purpose, which delays the useful information. Still, little is wasted overall.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece — what is returned (repoUrl + baseCommit) — and the stability caveat. Auth/permission expectations for the POST endpoint remain unstated, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'url' and 'kind' fully; baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., accepted URL formats or when to override the default kind='github') beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Import a public GitHub repository') and even cites the underlying endpoint (POST /requests/import). It also connects the output to downstream paid actions ('repoUrl + baseCommit to use in paid-action inputs'), which lightly differentiates it from siblings like imd_quote or imd_pay, though it doesn't name those siblings directly.

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 guidance is mostly a caution ('It may not work as described. Read the code, start with small amounts, no warranty') rather than an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule. The phrase 'to use in paid-action inputs' implies this is a prerequisite step for the paid-action siblings, but no alternative tool or exclusion is named.

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