import_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context about accepted URL types (webpage/WeChat) and the folder omission rule, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return behavior beyond the obvious 'add' mutation. The count limit and optional folder_id are already present in the schema, so these add minimal new behavioral insight.

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, front-loaded sentence that covers the core action and key constraint without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It earns its place with zero waste.

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 simple import tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose and parameter rule, but omits return values, duplicate handling, or any post-import behavior. While the tool is straightforward, the lack of return/error information leaves some contextual 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's statement about omitting folder_id for root directory and the 1-10 URL limit merely repeats what the schema already documents. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 action: adding webpage or WeChat article URLs to a knowledge base, with a specific verb and resource. It also includes a constraint (1-10 URLs) that distinguishes it from search/read sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context by specifying that folder_id should be omitted when adding to the root directory. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the tool's write nature and the sibling tools' read nature make the intended use clear.

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