sb_import

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it specifies that content is added as real elements styled with the current page's tokens, clarifies that it is not a clone (source layout and CSS are not copied), and notes that dry run returns what was found. It still omits side effects like image uploads, but the added behavioral detail is solid.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and target. The subsequent sentences each add a distinct clarification (not a clone; dry run behavior) without repetition 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 an eight-parameter import tool with no output schema and annotations only covering basic safety, the description gives a good high-level purpose but leaves notable gaps. It does not mention that images are uploaded by default (upload_images=true), the node/section limits, or the site_id parameter, all of which are behaviorally significant for correct invocation.

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 63%, so the schema already documents several parameters (url, max_nodes, max_images, upload_images, nav_timeout_ms). The description only adds meaning for dry_run ('returns what was found') and does not explain site_id, max_sections, or provide guidance on the limit parameters, so it neither fully compensates for the coverage gap nor is empty.

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 states a specific verb chain (read a page, add its structure and content) and a clear target (the OPEN page), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from a clone. However, it does not name or differentiate from sibling tools like sb_import_site, leaving the agent to infer the scope difference between an individual page import and a site import.

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 what the tool does but offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not say when to prefer this over sb_import_site or other import tools, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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