import_markdown_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important non-obvious behavior: checkbox syntax is stripped and checked state is ignored when the destination is not a TODO map. It does not state the response shape, whether import is atomic, or how existing content is affected.

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 compact and front-loads the core import behavior, then adds only relevant caveats about headings, checkboxes, and existing maps. 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential quirks an agent needs: existing-map restriction, heading-as-element handling, and non-TODO checkbox stripping. It leaves some behavioral details unstated, but the full parameter schema fills in syntax and size constraints.

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 100%, so mapId, markdown, and parentElementId are already documented. The description adds useful import semantics such as heading handling and checkbox behavior, but does not add parameter-specific 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 gives a specific verb and resource: it assembles Markdown of arbitrary depth and imports it into an existing map. It also clarifies that headings become elements, distinguishing the operation from create_map or edit_element.

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?

It clearly limits use to existing maps and explicitly routes new-map creation to create_map first. It does not cover other alternatives such as editing individual elements, but the primary when/when-not condition is stated.

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