import_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the operation mutates the knowledge base by importing content, but does not disclose permission requirements, deduplication or overwrite behavior, idempotency, or the response shape. This is a noticeable gap for a mutating tool.

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?

A single eight-word sentence that front-lods the action and resource with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward import operation, though some behavioral context was traded away in favor of brevity.

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 four-parameter import tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and destination. The schema covers parameters, but the agent gets no guidance on return values, duplicate handling, or multi-user scoping via user_id. Adequate for a simple call, yet with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, though 'raw text' loosely maps to the required content field.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') and identifies the resource ('raw text content') and destination ('OpenMemory RAG knowledge base'). The modifier 'raw text' differentiates it from the sibling tools import_file and import_url, making it clear that this is for direct text ingestion rather than file or URL imports.

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 phrasing implies the context: use this when you have raw text content to store in the knowledge base. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a simple import tool the intended usage is clear enough.

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