creator_import_kra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the critical destructive behavior: 'THIS REPLACES THE CURRENT PROJECT.' This is a strong warning, though it does not mention undoability or confirmation behavior.

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 a prominent, well-placed warning. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple import tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the key risk. It could mention more about what happens to the current project or require confirmation, but the core context is sufficiently complete.

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 both parameters (path, keep_structure) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb ('Import') with a specific resource ('Krita .kra file') and clearly states the effect ('as a new project' and 'REPLACES THE CURRENT PROJECT'). It distinguishes from sibling import tools (PSD, INP, folder, images) by naming the format.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you have a .kra file to import) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like import_psd or import_folder. The destructive warning adds context but no explicit 'do not use when...' guidance.

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