Import clauses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for this mutating import tool. It does disclose meaningful behavior: duplicate titles are skipped unless overwrite is set, a 'capped' count signals a limit, JSON requires Pro, and the free tier caps at 10. This is genuine added value, though it stops short of covering response format details, error cases, or rollback behavior.

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?

Three tight fragments with zero waste: the main action, the overwrite behavior, and the licensing constraint. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each clause earns its place without redundancy.

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 2-parameter import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: supported formats, the reported counts (added/replaced/skipped/capped), and the free/pro cap. It reasonably compensates for the missing output schema by stating what results are returned, leaving only minor gaps around precise cap mechanics.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters in detail, including the markdown/JSON file formats and the overwrite semantics. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific verb ('load'), a resource ('clauses'), and a source ('a .md or .json file'), and adds the outcome ('reporting added, replaced, skipped and capped counts'). This clearly separates it from siblings like clause_add (single inline clause) and clause_export (the inverse direction). An agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: loading clauses from files, and it documents the overwrite-vs-skip behavior that governs outcomes. It provides licensing guidance (json is Pro, free cap of 10) which helps an agent decide feasibility. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives such as clause_add for single-clause entry, so exclusions are only implied rather than stated.

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