project_import

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

The description mentions a plugin rescanning prerequisite but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like whether the operation overwrites existing data, if it is idempotent, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 consists of two concise sentences with the primary purpose stated first and an important prerequisite second. There is no redundant or unnecessary content.

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 nested objects and no output schema, the description is too brief to cover essential nuances such as the expected project data structure, error conditions, or the rationale for the plugin rescan requirement. It leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to understand the tool fully.

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?

The phrase 'under a new project ID' adds some meaning to the project_id parameter, but the description does not explain the project parameter or any nested structure. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 that the tool imports exported project data and creates a new project ID, which distinguishes it from other project-related tools like project_restore. However, it could be more specific about the data format or the difference from project_create.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_restore or project_apply. It only describes the function without criteria for selection.

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