appflowy_import_markdown_directory

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses core behavior (recursive import, image upload). However, it omits side effects (e.g., overwrites?), error handling, sync vs async, and permission requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (recursive import with image upload) and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks return value details, path requirements (absolute?), and concurrency behavior. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 tool description adds no explanation of any parameters (workspace_id, parent_view_id, path, upload_assets). The description fails to clarify what these parameters mean or how to obtain them, especially critical for parent_view_id which has hierarchy constraints.

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 'import a local Markdown directory recursively' and specifies the mapping: folders become pages, Markdown files become child pages, images are uploaded. This distinguishes it from the sibling appflowy_import_markdown_file which handles single files.

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 implies use for directories via the word 'directory', but does not explicitly contrast with the single-file sibling or mention prerequisites (e.g., path validity, parent_view_id must be a space). The parent_view_id schema description adds some guidance but the tool description itself lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.

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