import_agent

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Import Agent Configuration'), so the description carries the burden. It describes the core behavior (importing and recreating agents) and hints at customization steps, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, with every sentence adding clear value.

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 complexity (importing agents with customization), the description is complete enough with purpose and workflow guidance. Annotations are minimal, but the output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It could improve by addressing potential errors or 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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as file format requirements or project context, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Import a serialized agent JSON file and recreate the agent in the system') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'export_agent', 'modify_agent', and 'attach_tool' by explaining their relationship in the workflow.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use export_agent to create the JSON file, then modify_agent or attach_tool to customize the imported agent'), providing clear workflow context and alternatives for customization, which helps differentiate it from tools like 'create_agent' or 'clone_agent'.

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