project_import

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool is a replacement operation ('Replace the whole project') and that it 'validates the full document' with 'unknown fields rejected.' However, it does not mention what happens after successful validation (e.g., whether the save is immediate or if there is a return value), which would be useful.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and scope, while the second provides usage guidance and validation behavior. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 complex tool with a large nested schema and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it does, when to use it, and key validation behavior. It also differentiates it from sibling tools. Missing details such as return value or explicit 'when not to use' are minor given the clarity of the overall message.

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 single parameter 'project' is already described in the schema as 'The complete JourneyGraph project document,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds that it includes 'journeys and screens together' and that 'unknown fields are rejected,' but these are more about behavior and scope than about parameter meaning. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 core action: 'Replace the whole project in one call: journeys and screens together.' This identifies the specific verb (replace), the resource (project), and the scope (journeys and screens). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'many journey_define/screen_register calls'.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this over many journey_define/screen_register calls when registering a complete or large design.' This provides a clear condition (complete/large design) and names alternatives, making it easy for an agent to decide when to use this tool instead of the incremental ones.

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