import_file

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

The description only states the basic action and preservation of original metadata, which is already evident from the schema parameters. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or authentication needs. Since no annotations are provided, this is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. The core action is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or error conditions. With no annotations and 5 required parameters, the description is too minimal for a tool likely used in migration/import workflows.

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% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters. The description's phrase 'original timestamp and author' reinforces created_at and created_by but does not add meaningful new information beyond the schema.

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'), the resource ('file attachment'), and a distinguishing detail ('with original timestamp and author'). This separates it from sibling import tools like import_issue, import_comment, and import_link.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when to choose import_file over import_issue, import_comment, or attachment management tools like list_attachments. The description is purely declarative.

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