import_propertysource

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-idempotent; the description adds 'requires write permission' and 'multipart upload' as extra behavioral context. It doesn't describe error handling or side effects beyond write, but given annotation coverage, this is a solid addition.

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 no fluff: purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative routing is given concisely. 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 an import tool with nested object and conflict handling, the description covers the format and alternative clearly. While it doesn't detail conflict behavior, that's handled by parameters in the schema, and annotations cover safety. Adequate and complete enough for correct invocation.

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 parameters. The description adds a bit of context for 'definition' by specifying 'LM Exchange JSON format' but doesn't enrich handle_conflict or fields_to_preserve. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), resource ('PropertySource'), and format ('LM Exchange JSON') and explicitly contrasts with create_propertysource for REST API format, clearly distinguishing from a key sibling. It also notes the multipart upload mechanism.

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, directing the agent to create_propertysource for REST API format definitions (e.g., from export_propertysource). Also mentions write permission as a prerequisite.

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