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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining how the markdown is parsed (## headings, table rows, header columns) and that the entire app is created in a single call. It does not mention potential collisions or error handling, but the annotations plus parsing detail cover the main behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the alternative is named early, and parsing rules are packed compactly. 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 moderately complex import operation, the description covers purpose, usage condition, parsing semantics, and input format. The schema provides full parameter documentation. The main gap is the lack of any description of the return value, but with no output schema and rich surrounding context, this is a minor omission, not a blocking one.

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%, and the schema already fully documents all three parameters, including the markdown format. The main description adds only a small clarification ('Pass the file's contents as text'), which does not substantially go beyond the schema. Hence the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a whole app from a markdown test plan, in one call.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_check by contrasting bulk import with one-at-a-time addition. The parsing rules for sections, checks, and platform columns further pin down exactly what the tool does.

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 explicitly gives the when-to-use condition: 'This is how to add a real runbook — a plan runs to hundreds of checks and add_check one at a time is not the way.' It names the alternative (add_check) and explains why that alternative is inappropriate for large plans, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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