import_template

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does: replacement of existing template content, writing to raw layer, and the need for repack. Missing details like error behavior or reversibility, but the key mutation and layering semantics are stated.

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 with no fluff. The primary action and the critical follow-up (repack) are both present and front-loaded.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for correct invocation: required dir_path is unexplained, and the roles of object_path and template_path are unclear. An output schema exists, so return values need no description, but input semantics are incomplete.

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%, so the description needs to explain parameters. It only hints at template_name ('template_name or the only one') and the .mxl input concept; dir_path, object_path, and template_path remain undefined. An agent cannot reliably map all inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (import) and resource (object template), with file format (.mxl) and semantics (replaces contents of an existing template). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like read_template (reading), import_dcs (different format), and repack (assembly).

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 says the tool writes to the raw layer and that repack performs assembly, effectively instructing the agent to run repack afterward. It does not explicitly list exclusions vs alternatives, but the raw-layer/repack framing provides clear usage context.

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