Import IELTS question bank

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which indicate this mutates local state. The description says 'save them to the learner's local question bank' which implies persistence, but doesn't disclose whether existing questions are overwritten, merged, or duplicated. It doesn't mention validation behavior, failure handling, or whether the import is transactional. With no destructive hint and multiple possible write behaviors, more disclosure is needed.

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?

Single efficient sentence that conveys the core action and target within one clause. No wasted words. It's appropriately compact, though it could arguably be longer given the lack of behavioral disclosure elsewhere. Structure is clean and front-loaded with the primary verb.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no enums, and no nested objects, so the description is the primary documentation source. Yet it fails to explain the JSON format requirements, the relationship between sourceName/sourceUrl, merge vs replace behavior, response/return values (though output schema exists), and interaction with siblings like list_question_bank. For an import tool, this is notably incomplete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. However, the description itself mentions 'JSON array' which aligns with questionsJson, and 'normalized' hints at expected format. But it doesn't explain sourceName vs sourceUrl distinction, what maxLength limits imply, or what 'normalized' actually means structurally. The description adds partial meaning beyond the schema but leaves the parameter semantics significantly under-specified.

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 action (import), the resource (IELTS speaking questions from a JSON array), and the destination (learner's local question bank). It uses a specific verb+resource construction that effectively communicates the core function. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_question_bank, but the import-vs-list distinction is reasonably implied.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_question_bank or initialize_ielts_workspace. It also doesn't clarify whether an initial workspace must exist before importing, whether the import appends to or replaces existing questions, or what format expectations exist beyond 'normalized.' No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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