manage_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses that file/restore are writes, that restore replaces all content, that it requires batch delete permission, and that dry_run avoids touching the tree. Endpoints are given, making side effects traceable.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line summary, then action modes, args, and returns in scannable blocks. The length is justified by the number of actions and no sentence is redundant.

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 five-parameter multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything necessary: endpoint semantics, per-action requirements, permissions, destructive behavior, dry-run safety, and the return dict shape. No operation-critical detail is left unspecified.

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?

The schema provides only names/defaults with no descriptions or enums (0% coverage), but the Args section defines all five parameters, states which actions require each, lists acceptable extensions, and explains dry_run/instance behavior. This fully compensates for 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 opening line names a concrete verb-resource pairing ('List importers or import a family tree file') and then breaks out four action modes with endpoints, so an agent can tell manage_import apart from export/search tools. The multi-action nature is explicit rather than hidden.

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?

Action-specific guidance is strong: list/info/file/restore each have distinct endpoints and required parameters, and dry_run is flagged as the safe preview path. However, the description does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as manage_export or manage_tree, so the when-vs-alternatives guidance is implied rather than stated.

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