import_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Import a level' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing levels, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Import a level from PuzzleData JSON'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning its place 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (import implies write), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error handling, or format specifics. For a tool that likely modifies game levels, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, with the parameter 'puzzleData' documented as a 'PuzzleData JSON object'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying 'from PuzzleData JSON', but doesn't explain the JSON structure or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Import') and resource ('a level'), specifying it's from 'PuzzleData JSON'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_level' (new creation) and 'export_level' (opposite direction), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_level' or 'load_draft', nor prerequisites (e.g., needing PuzzleData JSON format). The description implies usage for importing levels from JSON, but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone.

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