import_dbml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the destructive nature ('Fully replaces'), a key side-effect ('project id preserved'), a constraint ('dialect fixed to mysql'), and an error condition ('Rejected as invalid_source when no tables are found'). This gives an agent a solid grasp of side effects and failure modes.

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 a tight two-sentence statement. It front-loads the primary behavior and then adds important secondary constraints and error handling. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key side effects, a constraint, and a specific error case. It does not mention the return value on success, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the fact that the main outcome is a replaced ERD.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds meaning to the 'dbml' parameter by calling it 'DBML parse result' and clarifies that 'source' refers to an existing ERD to be replaced. However, the source schema already provides good descriptions for file/erdId, and the description does not add further detail about the expected format or relationships between parameters.

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 tool's primary action: 'Fully replaces an existing ERD with the DBML parse result.' The verb 'replaces' plus the specific resource (ERD) and result (DBML parse) make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from siblings like export_dbml (export) and import_sql (SQL import).

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 implies the use case: when you want to replace an existing ERD with DBML content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for importing SQL, use import_sql'), so it lacks direct comparative guidance.

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