write_import_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Write import settings' with no mention of side effects, overwrite behavior, file modifications, permissions, or whether it creates new files or edits existing ones. The settings parameter description adds a hint about the format ('key=value in the [params] section') but that is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is extremely short ('Write import settings.'), which is brief but under-specified. It does not waste words, but it omits important context. It is neither appropriately sized for the tool's complexity nor front-loaded with key behavioral details.

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?

The tool is a write operation with no output schema, so the description should explain what happens after writing (e.g., does it modify an .import file? Is there a return value?). It does not address side effects or confirm completion. The presence of 'read_import_config' suggests it writes to import config files, but this is not stated, making the description incomplete.

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% since both parameters have descriptions. The settings parameter description adds some context about the [params] section, but the tool description itself does not enrich the parameter meanings beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers all params.

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 and resource: 'Write import settings.' It clearly indicates the tool writes import settings, and the sibling tool 'read_import_config' helps clarify the context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other write tools like 'write_resource' or 'write_project_config', so it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to related tools such as 'read_import_config' or other write tools. There is no contextual clue about typical use cases.

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