Import character from poe.ninja

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

readOnlyHint: false already flags the mutation; the description adds genuine behavioral context by specifying the exact side effect (replaces the active build) and naming which dependent tools are affected. This is valuable beyond the annotation, though it stops short of describing overwrite/reversal behavior.

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?

A single ~50-word sentence that front-loads the core purpose before the side-effect detail. Every clause earns its place: source, two input methods, and downstream effect. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a 4-optional-param tool with no output schema and a mutation annotation, the description covers the essential agent-facing facts: input source, input alternatives, and the resulting active-build state. A successful-call response shape is undocumented, but the absence of an output schema and clear primary behaviors keep this adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters and their defaulting behavior (accountName defaults to configured account; characterName to currently played character). The description only adds the OR-relationship between profileUrl and account/character name, which is helpful but modest; the schema bears most of the load, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (import), a precise source (poe.ninja), and the concrete outcome (set as active build consumed by compare_item, get_defenses, get_offense_stats, get_inventory). Naming the source and the downstream tools distinguishes it from the sibling import_pob_build without needing to open 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?

Provides operational guidance by laying out the two input paths (profile URL OR account name + character name) and clearly describes what happens on success (becomes the active build that feeds the listed tools). It implies the natural use case (populate the working build from poe.ninja) but does not explicitly contrast with import_pob_build or state when not to use it, so a small gap remains.

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