import_arms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it creates or updates arms, and the override parameter explicitly states that existing arms not in the import will be deleted. This is a significant destructive behavior clearly disclosed. However, it doesn't explain how matching between existing and imported arms works (e.g., by arm_num), which is a minor gap.

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 is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers data format, override behavior, and return value. The main missing piece is the upsert matching logic (e.g., by arm_num) and the default behavior when override is False. The output schema exists, so return value details are adequately addressed.

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 input schema has zero description coverage and only provides titles 'Data' and 'Override.' The description fully compensates: it clarifies that 'data' is a JSON array of arm objects with arm_num and name fields, and explains 'override' as deleting existing arms not in the import. This is essential meaning absent from the 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 states 'Import (create or update) arms in a longitudinal REDCap project.' This provides a specific verb (import), a clear resource (arms), and clarifies upsert behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like export_arms and delete_arms.

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 its usage through the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are named. The 'longitudinal REDCap project' context hints at a specific scenario, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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