aiworkhub_runtime_coverage_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — gated write and atomic execution — but says nothing about permissions required, idempotency, whether existing coverage is replaced or merged, or failure/rollback behavior for a destructive-looking import.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the gating constraint and commits to no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a write operation with an undocumented parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the missing parameter documentation, absent preview/alternative routing, and thin behavioral detail leave a write-gated import tool under-described.

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% for the single required parameter artifact_path, and the description never addresses it. Only 'repo-local' faintly hints at the path's scope, leaving format and expected location undocumented.

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 and resource: 'project repo-local coverage into Source Graph', with 'WRITE-GATED' signalling a mutation. An agent can identify the operation, though 'project' and 'Source Graph' are domain jargon and the preview/import split against aiworkhub_runtime_coverage_preview is only implied, not named.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the obvious sibling aiworkhub_runtime_coverage_preview as the non-committing alternative. 'WRITE-GATED' hints that authorization matters but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over the preview.

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