scheme_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool. It never says whether the import replaces existing nodes, appends/merges, handles duplicates, is transactional, or what permissions are needed — all critical for an agent deciding whether to run it.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and source front-loaded, no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it borders on under-specification.

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 mutation/import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say whether it appends vs replaces, what it returns, and what happens on conflicts. None of that is present, leaving key behavioral questions unanswered.

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%, covering both scheme_id (including the MCP_SCHEME_ID env fallback) and nodes_list. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+source ('Import nodes into a scheme from exported JSON data'), which clearly separates it from siblings like scheme_export and node_create_action. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

'From exported JSON data' implies it is the counterpart to scheme_export, so the intended workflow is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of required preconditions (target scheme existing, prior export), and no exclusion against creating nodes one-by-one with node_create_* tools.

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