Import Saved Objects

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description goes further: existing objects are never touched, ids are regenerated, the return maps source id -> new destination id, and a stale handle errors. The space-independence of a handle is non-obvious behavioral context that could not be inferred from annotations.

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?

Well front-loaded with the semantics of the operation before the alternatives, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly repetitive in restating 'clone' versus 'existing objects never touched', but it stays well within a useful length.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still briefly notes the return shape (source id -> new id), and it covers handles, error cases, space targeting, and the destructive alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: `handle` is defined as the value returned by export_saved_objects, with its error behavior and space-independence spelled out; `space` is defined as a Kibana space id with the default space as fallback. Both parameters are documented beyond their bare types.

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 specific verb and resource (import saved objects) and immediately qualifies the mode: creates NEW copies with regenerated ids rather than an in-place restore. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling overwrite_saved_objects, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('To restore in place instead, use overwrite_saved_objects (destructive)') and the condition that selects it. It also defines when the handle is valid and what happens when it is not (missing/expired handle errors).

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