memory_import_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (copy/import) but does not specify whether existing rules are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: first sentence states the purpose, second provides a specific usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It explains the source_project and memory_ids, but does not clarify the optional project parameter or the meaning of 'this one.' Still, it is mostly complete for a copy/import tool.

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 must compensate. It explains that 'source_project' is the project to copy from and that 'memory_ids' should be obtained via memory_get_rules. However, the optional 'project' parameter (default null) is not explained, leaving ambiguity about its purpose. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Copy selected rules/memories from another project into this one') and specifies the resource (rules/memories). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning a prerequisite step (use memory_get_rules to get ids), which is unique to this tool.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (to import rules/memories from another project) and provides a step-by-step usage hint: 'Use memory_get_rules(source_project) first to get the ids to import.' This gives clear guidance on how to prepare the input.

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