import_agent_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the endpoint 'does NOT consume request quota', that save:false returns translated steps without persisting, and what the dry run returns. It stops short of documenting error/failure behavior or auth requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Verb+resource is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (trace shape, selectors option, dry-run flag, quota note, workflow pairing). It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place; slightly long but not padded.

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 complex tool with five parameters, a nested trace object, and no output schema, the description covers the trace input, selectors resolution, persistence control, and side-effect profile well. It leaves the exact return payload shape somewhat implicit, which keeps it from a 5.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description largely restates the trace entry shapes and the selectors map origin that the schema already provides, adding only marginal framing. Baseline 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 opening sentence names a specific verb and both resources: 'Convert a page-agent/browser-use action trace into a re-runnable PageBolt sequence.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like observe_page, run_sequence, and export_sequence.

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 prescribes the exact workflow 'observe_page (format:"flatdomtree") → run an agent → import_agent_trace', explains the dry-run condition (save:false), and describes the intended outcome (turn an ad-hoc agent run into a deterministic, replayable sequence). An agent knows when and why to reach for this tool.

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