import_saved_objects

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

Annotations provide minimal detail (all false), so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states existing objects are never touched, creates new copies, returns a source-to-destination mapping, and errors on missing/expired handles. However, it does not explicitly mention idempotency (implied by new copies) or other potential side effects, so a 4 is fitting.

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 well-structured in three sentences, each delivering key information: purpose, alternative, and parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and critical distinction. Slightly verbose but all content is purposeful.

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?

The tool description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, behavior, parameter semantics, return value, and error conditions. The output schema exists and is not needed for explanation. No significant gaps are evident, making it contextually 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?

Both parameters are semantically enriched: `handle` is tied to `export_saved_objects` and its error case, while `space` is explained with default behavior and interaction with the handle. This adds significant meaning beyond the minimal schema definitions, compensating for the low schema coverage signal.

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 action: import saved objects as new copies with regenerated IDs, and explicitly distinguishes this from an in-place restore by naming the alternative `overwrite_saved_objects`. It also identifies the resource (exported saved objects) and scope (current space), making it highly distinguishable from siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for cloning into a space, and when-not-to-use: for restoring in place, suggesting `overwrite_saved_objects` as the destructive alternative. It also clarifies the space-agnostic nature of handles, giving clear context for cross-space imports.

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