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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that existing projects remain unchanged, repeated calls create separate projects, write permission is required, and the default scheduler run only reports drift. These details make the creation scope, non-idempotency, authorization requirement, and date-changing behavior concrete.

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 purpose and supported formats are front-loaded, followed by scheduling behavior, the preview prerequisite, duplicate-call consequences, and authorization. Every sentence supplies operational information without filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Together with the fully documented schema and consistent annotations, the description provides nearly everything needed to invoke the import correctly and safely. Because there is no output schema, the lack of detail about the successful result beyond drift reporting, such as returned project identifiers, is a small remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding applySchedule=false into the drift-measurement behavior and by documenting accepted file extensions, while most other parameter details remain appropriately handled by 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource, lists the supported external formats, and states that the result is a new project. This scope distinguishes it from the blank, plan-based, and template-based project-creation siblings, as well as from planitude_preview_import.

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 provides an explicit workflow condition: call planitude_preview_import first when the user has not confirmed the import. It also explains how to choose between preserving the file's dates and saving Planitude-calculated dates with applySchedule=true.

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