Import requests

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: collection settings are adopted only when the workspace has none, scripts and OAuth 2.0 settings are stripped and reported in leftOut, warnings describe the source, and imports containing credentials, local file reads, or local command execution are refused. These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent needs for a write-capable import tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers on the key behavioral caveats. It is dense but each clause carries useful information; the only minor cost is a long paragraph rather than shorter separated statements.

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 an output schema for the return value, full schema description coverage, and annotations already declaring openWorld and non-idempotent behavior, the description supplies enough additional context about sanitization, refusal conditions, and non-destructive workspace behavior to call the tool correctly.

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 url, folder, format, and content in detail. The description reinforces what documents can be imported but adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: it adds requests to the workspace from named source formats. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as save_request or lint_spec, but the import/collection scope is unambiguous from the enumerated formats.

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?

Usage is implied by the list of supported import sources, but the description never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like save_request or lint_spec. The note that existing content is not changed provides useful context but is not an explicit usage rule.

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