iaas_import_package

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

Annotations already declare the mutation and open-world profile, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context by citing TUS resumable upload and chunked import, but it omits details about authentication, sequencing, side effects on existing packages, and error behavior.

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 short and front-loads the main action, with the TUS reference and endpoint following. The leading 'Import package' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and next sentence, but overall it is compact and readable.

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?

This is a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and several required headers, so the description should ideally explain sequencing, prerequisites, and response expectations. Citing TUS provides helpful protocol context, but an agent would still need to consult the schema and external RFC for correct invocation details.

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 all five parameters and required headers. The description mentions chunk size and the TUS protocol, which gives some conceptual context, but it does not add semantics beyond the schema for id, body, apiVersion, Tus-Resumable, or Upload-Offset.

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 IPAM package in chunks, and identifies the endpoint. It is much clearer than a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as iaas_import_package_http_method_override or iaas_reserve_package.

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 explains that this performs chunked IPAM package import using TUS, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the name and endpoint rather than being routed to or away from this tool.

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