project_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'Replace the whole project' (destructive overwrite), 'Validates the full document; unknown fields are rejected.' It does not mention authentication, permissions, or error handling details, which would be helpful. The lack of annotations reduces the baseline expectation, but the description provides adequate core behavioral 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 extremely concise: three sentences, each adding distinct value (purpose, usage guidance, validation behavior). No superfluous content. Front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (deeply nested schema, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and validation but omits details about success/error responses, idempotency, or required permissions. The absence of an output schema shifts the burden to the description, which it partially meets but not fully.

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% with the parameter 'project' having a high-level description. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by stating 'Validates the full document; unknown fields are rejected,' which clarifies validation behavior and input constraints. This elevates it above baseline 3.

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 purpose: 'Replace the whole project in one call: journeys and screens together.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It further distinguishes from sibling tools (journey_define, screen_register) by explicitly mentioning them as alternatives for partial operations.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Prefer this over many journey_define/screen_register calls when registering a complete or large design.' This explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it (e.g., for incremental updates), leaving a minor gap.

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