Team Import from Markdown

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds only the source format ('frontmattered Markdown') and says nothing about what happens to existing journal entries, duplicate handling, whether re-runs create duplicates (relevant since idempotentHint is false), or filesystem access scope.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

A write tool with six parameters, an output schema, and several near-identical siblings needs more than one line: the dry_run workflow, workspace isolation requirement, and overlap with team_import_external are all unaddressed.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the schema documents limit, dry_run, source_dir, and workspace_id, but use_test_db and project_number have no description anywhere. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the gap and adds nothing to the documented ones.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Import ... Markdown files into the team journal') and adds a useful qualifier about frontmattered input. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely-named siblings team_import_external or import_markdown, so an agent cannot route confidently between them from the description alone.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus team_import_external, import_markdown, or import_external, all of which appear to overlap. It also never suggests using the available dry_run flag to preview, which is the one usage hint this tool most needs.

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