llm_import_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that profiles are merged with existing learned routes and that community profiles require confidence >=2. However, it does not detail merge behavior (overwrite vs. additive), authentication needs, or error handling for invalid URLs. Provides some transparency but not exhaustive.

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 tightly written: two sentences for purpose, one for validation, and clear Args/Returns sections. No redundancy or wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main functionality, default behavior, and a key validation rule. However, it omits error conditions (e.g., invalid URL, missing community profile) and does not explain the merge summary contents, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 0%, but the description explains the single 'url' parameter: optional, defaults to community latest, and expects a URL to a JSON file. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default, though examples or format details would improve it further.

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. It specifies the verb 'Import', the resource 'learned routing profile', and the scope 'from community or URL', distinguishing it from siblings like llm_share_profile which likely 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., llm_set_profile or llm_share_profile). The description implies usage for importing profiles but does not state exclusions or compare to other routing tools.

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