import_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the action ('import') and source formats, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing graphs), error handling, or output expectations. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and source formats without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details like parameter meanings, behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, errors), and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain the two required parameters ('graph_id' and 'path'), such as what 'graph_id' represents (e.g., new or existing graph) or 'path' format (e.g., file path syntax). This leaves parameters undocumented.

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 resource ('graph'), specifying the source formats (YAML or JSON file). It distinguishes from siblings like 'export_graph' (opposite direction) and 'create_state_graph' (different creation method). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives like bulk operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, format specifics), compare to sibling tools like 'create_state_graph' for new graphs, or indicate scenarios where import is preferred over other creation methods.

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