workspace.import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context by stating the destination must not exist and that content is hash-verified. It does not say what happens on a hash mismatch, whether parent directories are created, or what permissions the import requires.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action, the source constraint, the destination constraint, and the failure condition, with no filler text.

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. For a destructive, non-idempotent four-required-parameter tool, however, the description omits workspace_id semantics and failure behavior (hash mismatch, missing read root), leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains source provenance (configured read roots), that destination is workspace-relative and must not pre-exist, and that expected_sha256 acts as a hash lock — covering three of four parameters — but workspace_id is left entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ("Copy") and resource ("hash-locked input from configured read roots") with a clear destination scope (workspace-relative). It is distinguishable from siblings like workspace.create and workspace.status, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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?

It states a precondition ("destination ... must not exist") but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as workspace.create or adapter.invoke. An agent must infer when import is the right choice.

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