import_public_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — the archive format and integrity hash are verified before import — but omits failure behavior on a bad hash, auth requirements, whether importing is destructive or idempotent, and where the imported archive lands.

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 the verb and resource leading. Nothing is padded, though the trailing 'after verifying...' clause reads as a caveat rather than an instruction.

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/import tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is under-specified. It omits success/failure outcomes, permission needs, and the relationship to the profile-creation siblings.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds the constraint that the URL points to a public or unlisted archive URL, which is useful, but it does not clarify accepted URL forms, size limits, or whether the archive must be directly downloadable.

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 concrete verb ('Import') plus a specific resource ('public/unlisted Life Memory archive') and the source ('from a URL'). This is distinguishable from siblings like export_memory_archive and save_memory, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this applies to archives discovered via discover_public_memories or whether it must run before or after create_memory_profile.

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