import_diagnosticsource

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description correctly adds the write-permission requirement and multipart upload mechanics. However, it does not disclose whether the import overwrites existing modules, how handle_conflict works, or what happens to existing data beyond what the parameter names hint at. Some useful context is added, but side-effect transparency is incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, with the core action and format front-loaded. The alternative routing sentence earns its place and makes the definition efficient to parse.

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 3-parameter import tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, format, permission requirement, and sibling distinction, while the schema covers parameter semantics. It could more fully explain multipart request mechanics and overwrite/conflict behavior, but the essential calling context is present.

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 even without additional description-level parameter detail. The description adds format context that lightly informs the definition parameter, but it does not elaborate on handle_conflict or fields_to_preserve beyond their schema descriptions.

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 the specific operation 'Import', the resource 'DiagnosticSource', and the input format 'LM Exchange JSON' via 'multipart upload'. It also distinguishes itself from create_diagnosticsource by noting the alternative uses REST API format definitions. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 says when not to use this tool: for REST API format definitions, use create_diagnosticsource instead, and even cites export_diagnosticsource as a likely source of such definitions. This is direct, actionable routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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