bulk_import_phases

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

The description discloses idempotency and the default value of 'status?='done'', adding to annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also specifies optional fields and a common use case, going beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence gives the main purpose, the second outlines the item structure, and the third adds idempotency and usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (array of nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input structure, idempotency, and real-world usage scenario. It is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

The description enriches the schema by detailing the structure of each phase item (number, name, status with default, optional fields), which is not present in the schema's minimal description. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value.

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 clearly states the action ('backfill multiple historical phases at once'), identifies the resource ('phases'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_phase' which likely handles single phase addition.

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 provides explicit context: 'useful for adopting codevira on a project that already shipped N phases in git.' It implicitly excludes normal phase addition, but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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