import_project_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic verification before import, support for dry_run (no creation), require_runnable (block if missing secrets), and reporting of SECRET_VALUES_REQUIRED. Lacks detail on error handling or idempotency, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and connection point (Core gateway), second sentence lists key features. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 7 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow but does not explain the return format or how to handle the SECRET_VALUES_REQUIRED state. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about how certain parameters (dry_run, require_runnable) are used, but does not add detailed semantics 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 states a specific verb-resource pair (import archive into project) and adds detail about verification and supported flags (dry_run, require_runnable). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like export_project_archive and verify_project_archive.

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 implies that the tool is for importing already verified archives, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like verify_project_archive or inspect_project_archive. No exclusion criteria are given.

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