import_topologysource

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

Annotations already indicate a read/write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and mark it as non-idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: multipart upload semantics and the write-permission requirement. It does not detail conflict-handling behavior, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 compact sentences: the first delivers the core function and key constraints, the second gives the routing to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: format, method, permission, and the sibling alternative. It doesn't describe response behavior, but that's not required given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the import operation.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No contradictory or missing parameter details are present.

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 action (Import), a specific resource (TopologySource), the input format (LM Exchange JSON), and the transport method (multipart upload). It also distinguishes itself from create_topologysource by format, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 states when to use this tool (LM Exchange JSON format) and directs to the alternative (create_topologysource for REST API format). It also notes the write-permission prerequisite, providing actionable guidance for invocation.

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