Import Gateway Configuration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the write risk is known. The description adds useful context about the prerequisite (gateway connected/active) and the two input modes, but does not disclose overwrite semantics or conflict behavior beyond what the force parameter in the schema implies. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core action first, followed by a brief explanatory note on input modes and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 11 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the two essential input sources and a key prerequisite (gateway connectivity). It does not mention check/validate dry-run options or the relationship with export_gateway_configuration, but those are sufficiently covered by the schema and sibling names, making the description adequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds grouping of content vs git_* parameters but provides no additional syntax or semantic details beyond what the schema already explains.

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 tool imports a DB configuration into a connected gateway cluster, with a specific verb (import), resource (DB configuration), and target. It distinguishes from the sibling export_gateway_configuration by direction, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is used: it supports two supply modes (inline content or git_*) and states the prerequisite that the gateway must be connected and active. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, but it gives enough context for basic usage.

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