tandem_import_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that the operation creates fresh local IDs, preserves provenance, does not grant approval, is idempotent on retry, and cannot browse a foreign database.

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?

Four compact sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences each add a distinct, useful constraint or behavioral note.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema already present, the description covers all critical invocation details: import scope, provenance handling, revision expectations, idempotency, and the non-approval side effect. An agent has enough information to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains expected_revision ('Existing product revisions require expected_revision') and implies transfer_id from 'recipient-bound exports' and 'Retrying one transfer.' However, transfer_id is never named or formally defined, leaving a minor ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Explicitly accept a product snapshot offered to this launch project.' The description also distinguishes the tool from browsing or generic import by noting that only recipient-bound exports can be imported and no foreign database is browsed.

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?

Provides clear context about when the tool is appropriate: importing only recipient-bound exports, requiring expected_revision for existing revisions, and supporting idempotent retries. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use this instead of X,' but the constraints effectively delineate the correct use case.

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