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

Annotations already signal that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent, and the description does not add behavioral context beyond 'Import... into the world.' It does not disclose whether repeated imports create duplicates, whether the imported actor is a copy or a reference, or any permission requirements. With no additional behavioral disclosure, the description does not enrich what annotations already provide.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the essential identifier-mode guidance. 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?

The description thoroughly explains how to specify the compendium source and mentions the optional name and folder parameters are covered by the schema. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return value or how the agent can confirm success. It also omits any note about duplicate-import behavior. This is adequate for making a valid call but leaves some post-invocation context unclear.

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 schema covers each parameter, and the description adds relational semantics by explaining the two mutually exclusive identifier modes: uuid (with exact format and source tools) versus packId + actorId (from compendium-browse). This clarifies that packId/actorId are required only when uuid is absent, adding meaning beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Import an actor (monster, NPC) from a compendium pack into the world.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like actor-create by specifying the source (compendium) and the destination (world). The mention of 'monster, NPC' further disambiguates the actor type.

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 gives clear guidance on how to identify the target: either via uuid from filter/search tools or packId + actorId from compendium-browse. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like actor-create or explain when to prefer this over creating an actor from scratch. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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