Author a complete problem

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

The description discloses substantial behavior: clearing test cases, writing multiple artifacts, returning a per-step report, and editing a private draft. However, it says it 'clears the existing test cases' while annotations declare destructiveHint=false, which is a direct contradiction. Per the rubric, this makes the score 1 despite otherwise strong disclosure.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then gives the side effect, return semantics, and scope boundary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers destination, artifacts written, the reporting mechanism, and the draft-vs-contest scope. It is slightly less complete because the destructiveHint conflict leaves the safety profile ambiguous.

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 covers 100% of the five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the replace_testcases behavior and references problem_json coming from repovive_generate_problem, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Import a complete problem into a draft in one call', then enumerates exactly what gets written. It distinguishes this from the granular build_* sibling tools and from publishing by saying 'publishing it to a contest is a separate call'.

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?

It clearly signals when to use this tool: when you want a complete, one-call import into a draft. It also sets an exclusion by noting publishing is separate. It does not explicitly name the alternative granular build_* tools for partial updates, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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