Import Graph

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining that it 'replaces existing project data' and that the force parameter is required if data exists. This adds specific behavioral context beyond the generic annotation, clarifying the destructive consequence.

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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is complete for what the tool does: it specifies the bulk action, the data being imported, the destructive overwrite behavior, and the force requirement. With full schema coverage and annotations, no critical behavioral information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'force' parameter by stating it is required when existing data is present, which clarifies its role as a safety guard rather than just an optional overwrite switch. This extra semantic context justifies a score above baseline.

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 verb 'Bulk import' and the resource 'nodes and edges', and adds the key behavior of replacing existing project data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_node, batch_add_edges, and export_graph.

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 gives a clear precondition: 'requires force parameter if data exists', which tells the agent when an extra parameter is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the individual add/batch tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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