llm_import_profile

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses merging, confidence validation, and optional URL defaulting. However, it does not clarify if merging is additive or overwriting, nor mention authentication or rate limits.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences and structured Args/Returns. Front-loaded main purpose. Minor repetition between first two sentences, but overall efficient.

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 low complexity (1 param, no nested objects) and presence of output schema, description covers import purpose, source options, validation, and merging. Could mention idempotency or conflict resolution, but adequate.

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?

Only one parameter, url, with 0% schema coverage. Description explains it as a URL to a profile JSON file, optional, defaulting to community latest, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's default value.

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?

Clearly states the tool imports a learned routing profile from community or URL and merges with existing routes. The verb 'import' and resource 'learned routing profile' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling llm_share_profile which exports.

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?

Description explains when to import (community with confidence >=2) and that URL defaults to community latest. However, it does not explicitly contrast with exporting or other profile management siblings, though the context is clear.

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