schema_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, network-reaching operation. The description adds the useful config-mapping behavior (OpenAPI servers[] become config.baseUrl) but says nothing about side effects of import/register, auth requirements, or what gets created — modest added value against the already-declared write profile.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary format list leads and edge cases (import-first, Connect target) follow. Dense and jargon-heavy, but every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 7-param mutation tool with a nested config object and no output schema, the description covers format selection well but omits the register default's implications and any return/effect information. Adequate, not complete.

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?

At 71% schema coverage the schema documents most params, but the description still adds real meaning: 'source' accepts URL or file, 'target' is the gRPC host:port for .proto, and 'config' absorbs the servers[] mapping. Only name/register semantics go unaddressed, which keeps it below the top score.

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?

Presents a specific verb (Import) plus a precise list of resources (OpenAPI, WSDL, proto, GraphQL SDL, AsyncAPI, and import-first formats), which is far more than a restatement of the name. The only gap is that it never distinguishes itself from siblings like mcp_add or mcp_add_from_discovery, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

Gives conditional handling guidance for import-first formats ('export OpenAPI') and the Connect proto case, which implies when those branches apply. But it offers no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement against the many sibling management/discovery tools.

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