import_sample

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial mitigating fact that the overwritten file is exported to backups first, plus a hardware-verification caveat for the experimental NAM A2 path. It stops short of describing permissions or the response/return behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the destructive consequence, then format rules, then caveats — a sensible priority order. The format list is dense but earns its space; only minor tightening is possible.

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 destructive import tool with no output schema, it covers the critical unknowns: supported formats per kind, backup-on-overwrite, and the experimental status of the NAM A2 path. Missing pieces are the meaning of `name`/`slot` targeting and what a successful import returns.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates for `file` and `kind` by listing accepted extensions per kind, which the enum alone does not convey. However, `slot` (1-10), `name` (max 40 chars, presumably a slot label) and `confirm` are never explained — the most consequential of these, `confirm`, is left entirely to the schema's bare 'Must be true'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — upload a file into a sample slot, replacing its content — and immediately distinguishes itself from the export_sample/delete_sample/list_samples siblings by being the inbound write path. The parenthetical '(USB)' anchors the target domain.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use-by-format guidance: each `kind` value is mapped to its accepted extensions, and it explicitly rules out older non-A2 NAM captures. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. import_loop for loops), so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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