import_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behaviors: auto-backup when merge=false, and preview mode that shows a diff without importing. It doesn't cover error handling or return values, but the key side effects are explained.

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?

Three concise sentences, each providing essential information. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by merge/replace options and backup/preview behaviors. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the tool's core functionality, parameter semantics, and side effects adequately for a simple import tool. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't explain return values; however, this is not critical since the tool's primary output is the state change itself.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the backup side effect when merge=false and the purpose of preview mode. This enriches the parameter semantics.

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 tool loads knowledge from a JSON file, with specific merge/replace behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_knowledge (which exports) and validate_knowledge (which validates).

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 clear context for use: importing knowledge from a JSON file, with options to merge or replace, and a preview mode to check before applying. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it loses one point.

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