pixera_load_warp_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Load' implies a mutation to screen state, but it does not say whether an existing warp is overwritten, what happens on failure, or what permissions/paths are valid. Only the MPCDI default is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves key operational questions (overwrite behavior, path semantics, screen prerequisites) unanswered.

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 only hints at two of the three parameters (path via 'warp file', mpcdi via 'MPCDI by default') and says nothing about screen_name's expected format or whether path is a local or remote path.

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: loading a warp file onto a screen, with the format default (MPCDI) called out. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like pixera_import_warp_context or pixera_recommend_warp_method.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of pixera_import_warp_context or pixera_import_mappings, nor any prerequisites (does the screen need to exist, must the file be local?). The agent is left to infer the selection conditions entirely.

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