import_case

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses a real side effect: an embedded result becomes the current result. That is genuinely useful non-obvious behavior. It does not say what happens on duplicate imports, invalid files, or whether an existing case is replaced, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 padding or repetition. Slightly dense to parse because the two clauses are joined by a semicolon, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating import tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: what the language parameter affects, what is returned (a case identifier?), and error behavior when the file is missing or malformed.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. The path argument is only obliquely implied by "a .nscase file on this computer," and the `language` enum (ja/en/zh with default ja) is completely unexplained — an agent has no idea what it controls.

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 a concrete verb and resource ("Open a .nscase file ... as a new case") plus the resulting state ("a result inside it opens as the current result"). That is enough to distinguish it from import_geometry and open_example, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 implies a local file path ("on this computer") but gives no guidance on when to choose this over import_geometry, open_example, create_case, or clone_case, and no prerequisites such as file existence or version compatibility.

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