mureo_external_changes_import

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: entries are NOT reversible, duplicate imports are no-ops, platforms without feeds return status='unavailable' meaning mureo is BLIND, and 'truncated' means older changes are unreachable. It also explains that mureo's own changes are skipped and the observation window is anchored to actual change time.

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence delivers critical operational knowledge—edge cases, failure semantics, idempotency, and platform blindness—with no fluff. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary caveats in a logical order.

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 no output schema and complex behavior, the description covers response semantics (status='unavailable', truncated interpretation), idempotency, non-reversibility, and repeated-call safety. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, including understanding what results to expect.

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%, and each parameter already has detailed inline descriptions (path restrictions, 'since' re-check vs backfill caveat, platform key format). The main description reinforces these but doesn't add much beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Import changes made OUTSIDE mureo ... into STATE.json's action_log'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by scoping to external changes and explaining the purpose (making manual operations visible to daily-check). No other sibling has this exact import/visibility function.

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 explicit when-to-use reasoning ('so manual operation is visible to daily-check'), and crucial usage warnings: poll often because history cannot be backfilled, re-check via 'since' but not for backfill, and how to interpret 'truncated'. It also states the tool is safe to call repeatedly, which guides frequency expectations.

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