import_logsource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds useful context: it requires write permission, uses multipart upload, and imports from LM Exchange JSON format. It doesn't detail conflict-handling behavior or overwrite semantics, but the schema's handle_conflict and fields_to_preserve parameters hint at those, and the description's permission note adds value beyond annotations.

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 with zero waste. The core action and format are front-loaded, and the alternative routing is in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what format is accepted, the permission requirement, and the alternative for a different format. It doesn't explain the return value or conflict-handling behavior, but the schema's parameters (handle_conflict, fields_to_preserve) already signal those concerns. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the 'definition' parameter being in LM Exchange JSON format, which is useful, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for handle_conflict or fields_to_preserve. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Import'), a specific resource ('LogSource'), and a specific format ('LM Exchange JSON format via multipart upload'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_logsource by naming the alternative and the condition that selects it (REST API format definitions, e.g., from export_logsource).

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (LM Exchange JSON format via multipart upload) and when not to (REST API format definitions), naming the alternative tool (create_logsource). It also notes the write-permission requirement, which is a clear prerequisite.

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