veto_memory_import

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

Annotations already indicate destructive action. Description adds valuable context: use of INSERT OR IGNORE, no overwriting of existing rows, and the source file. Does not cover edge cases like missing file, but adequate for the action.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose and provide key details. No unnecessary words.

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 low complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, and post-import action completely.

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?

Only one parameter (input_path) with schema coverage at 100%. Description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 memory from a JSON file exported by veto_memory_export, specifying the source and the merge mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like veto_memory_export, veto_memory_delete, etc.

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?

Provides a clear follow-up action (call veto_sessions_list after import) and explains the merge behavior (INSERT OR IGNORE, no overwrites). Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for the agent.

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