import_takeoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral details: merge rules (finish-tag joins, knobs win, duplicates skip, idempotence), calibration precedence, unknown_files in the reply, approval marks as transport-only, and undo scope. This gives the agent a complete understanding of side effects beyond the schema.

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 dense and somewhat lengthy, but every sentence conveys necessary behavioral information. It front-loads the core action and then efficiently layers merge rules, edge cases, and prerequisites without redundant fluff, earning a high but not perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, merge behavior, file handling caveats, approval mark semantics, and undo behavior. It avoids explaining return values because the output schema exists, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 the single 'path' parameter with a clear description (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about the file origin but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states. It meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses the specific verb 'load' and names the exact file type ('opentakeoff.takeoff_canvas.v1'), clearly stating the tool's resource and action. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like export_takeoff by framing the operation as an import with defined merge rules, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 lists concrete use cases: resuming previous work, extending a human-reviewed takeoff, and auditing someone else's export. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires a loaded plan') and points to alternative tools (list_shapes/takeoff_summary) for viewing shapes, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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