Feeds Import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether the import is synchronous or queued, whether it mutates or creates content, whether it is idempotent, or what permissions it needs.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized for a two-parameter execution tool. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficient communication.

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 not be described. Still, with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a mutation-style action, the description omits the parameter meanings and execution semantics an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 0% and the description explains neither the required feed_id nor the optional source parameter (which defaults to null). With two undocumented parameters and no compensating text, the agent cannot tell what values are expected or how source relates to feed_id.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run a feed import'), so an agent knows it triggers a feed import process. However, it offers no differentiation from closely named siblings such as feeds_import_status, feeds_feed_update, or feeds_log_list, leaving the agent to guess which feed tool is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run an import versus checking status (feeds_import_status) or listing logs (feeds_log_list), and no mention of prerequisites such as an existing feed configuration. Usage context must be entirely inferred.

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