llm_import_profile

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

The description explains the import and merge behavior, includes a strict validation rule (confidence >= 2), and states the return format. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether existing routes are overwritten.

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 concise (3 sentences plus Args/Returns) with no unnecessary words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds 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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameters, validation, and return value. It could elaborate on merge behavior but is largely complete.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (url) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning: it is optional, defaults to community latest, and expects a URL to a JSON file. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool imports a learned routing profile from community or URL, and merges it with existing routes. This distinguishes it from siblings like llm_share_profile (export) and llm_set_profile (set current profile).

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 when importing shared profiles but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use llm_set_profile instead). It mentions the confidence validation but lacks direct when-not guidance.

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