Import from External Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description genuinely adds that wikilinks, YAML frontmatter and block hierarchies are normalized automatically, but it never addresses what happens on re-import (relevant given idempotentHint=false implies possible duplicates) or the 500-file ceiling.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and accepted formats, then normalization behavior, then the preview escape hatch. Efficient, with only slight duplication of the dry_run description already in the schema.

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?

Output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't repeat them. What remains missing is conflict/duplicate handling on repeated imports and how workspace_id interacts with the default scope — meaningful for a non-idempotent, open-world import.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates dry_run's preview semantics and names the source formats, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, and the undocumented project_number parameter is not covered either.

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 (import) and concrete resources (Notion, Obsidian, Logseq exports) landing in the journal, which instantly tells an agent what it produces. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling import_markdown, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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 only usage instruction is the embedded 'Use dry_run: true to preview what would happen without writing,' which is a parameter hint rather than tool selection guidance. Nothing says when to prefer this over import_markdown or team_import_external, nor what prerequisites (source directory layout, workspace scoping) matter.

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