akb_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains concept-document handling, the special table/file concept case, that existing paths are skipped rather than overwritten, that reserved records are skipped and reported, and that writer role is required. This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, input shape, format, concept-doc behavior, conflict policy, reserved-record behavior, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not repeat schema 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input contract, special cases, idempotency behavior, per-record failures, response reporting for reserved items, and auth. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining that `files` takes the exact map shape akb_export returns, that `format` currently only supports 'okf', and how concept documents map to imports. It doesn't elaborate on `status` or `_vault_skill_ack`, but those are already well described in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Import a knowledge bundle into a vault.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by referencing the bundle shape akb_export returns, making clear it is the bulk-import counterpart to export rather than a single-document tool like akb_put.

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: the input must be a {path: content} map in the shape akb_export returns, which strongly implies the tool is for importing exported bundles. It also gives a prerequisite (writer role) and describes edge cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like akb_put or state 'use this instead of X,' so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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