import_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only repeats the count limit and folder_id omission already present in the schema, adding no new context about side effects, permissions, error handling, or return values. A mutation tool like this should disclose what happens when URLs are added or if some fail.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and follows with a specific usage note. It contains no filler and is directly actionable, earning full marks for efficiency.

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?

Given that this is an import operation with side effects and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention success/failure behavior, permission requirements, whether content is fetched, or any post-add actions. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or 'what to expect.'

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: the 1-10 URL limit and root-directory behavior are already documented in the property descriptions. It does not elaborate on knowledge_base_id auto-resolution or any formatting requirements.

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's purpose: adding web or WeChat article URLs to the knowledge base. It specifies the exact resource (URLs) and action (add to knowledge base), and the 1-10 URL limit distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note or add_note_to_knowledge_base.

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 usage by stating its core function, but it doesn't explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does provide a useful context tip about omitting folder_id for root, but this is more about parameter handling than tool selection.

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