Import tasks

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with a write operation. The description adds transparency by noting that dryRun allows preview without writing, and explains auto-detection of format, which goes beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists supported formats, auto-detection, and dry run. Every sentence is informative 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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers supported formats, auto-detection, dry run, and default type. It lacks details on error handling or size limits but is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 high (80%) with 4 of 5 parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the overall behavior, format auto-detection, and dry run functionality, clarifying the use of parameters like format and content beyond the schema.

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 imports a backlog from raw text into a board, specifies multiple formats (markdown, CSV, JSON), and mentions auto-detection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_feature or add_features_bulk which handle single or multiple tasks in a different manner.

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 explains when to use the tool (importing a backlog) and provides guidance on formats and dry run, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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