import_eventsource

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it requires write permission, uses multipart upload, and only accepts LM Exchange JSON format. Annotations already cover read-only/destructive/idempotent hints, and the description supplements them with auth and format details.

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 filler, with the primary purpose and key constraint front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by routing to the correct sibling tool.

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 three-parameter import tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers format, permission, and the alternative tool. It could state success return behavior or conflict outcomes more explicitly, but the essential invocation 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. The description adds context that the definition is an LM Exchange JSON object, but it does not clarify valid values for handle_conflict or the semantics of fields_to_preserve beyond the schema's brief 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Import'), a clear resource ('EventSource'), and a precise source format ('LM Exchange JSON format via multipart upload'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from create_eventsource, so an agent can immediately tell which tool fits the task.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (LM Exchange JSON format) and when not to use it, directing the agent to create_eventsource for REST API format definitions such as those from export_eventsource. This is strong routing guidance.

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