import_poster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions that content is imported and metadata is included, but does not explain side effects such as overwriting, validation, permissions, or what happens on error. The out-of-scope note is about scope, not behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a scope clarification. It is efficient and free of filler, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 seven parameters with complex nested structures and no output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits return values, error handling, relationships to other poster tools, and detailed behavior. The minimalism leads to inadequacy for reliable use.

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 0%, yet the description provides no parameter guidance. It only mentions 'with metadata' without detailing html, css, content, theme, or path parameters. The complex nested content object's semantics are entirely unexplained, failing to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the action (import), the resource (existing HTML/CSS), the target (local archive), and the inclusion of metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only import tool for poster content and explicitly notes what is out of scope (image-only reconstruction).

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 context by stating it is for HTML/CSS import and clarifies that image-only poster reconstruction is not supported. While it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_poster or update_poster, the scope note gives a reasonable sense of when to use this tool.

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