import_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the burden. It clearly discloses the destructive 'fully replaces' behavior, notes that the project id is preserved, and mentions the invalid_source error condition when no tables are found. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent important risk-related context.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every word adds value. It is succinct without sacrificing necessary caveats.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key contextual aspects: destructive replacement, project preservation, and a relevant error condition. It does not explain the success return value, but the core invocation context is adequately 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?

The input schema already documents the required sql and source parameters with descriptions, and the dialect parameter has an enum with a default. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to given the schema coverage of 67%. Baseline 3 applies.

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 function: it replaces an existing ERD with the result of parsing SQL, while preserving the project id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_dbml and makes the resource and action explicit.

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 usage context: use this when you want to replace an existing ERD with a SQL parse result. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like import_dbml, so some guidance is missing.

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