Import Studio pack

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing environmental prerequisites (MSTY_ALLOW_STUDIO_WRITES=1, Studio must be closed), a mandatory backup step, exactly which pack sections are written versus withheld, and input length caps. This is the kind of operational context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Five tight sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint or routing rule, with the pack-only vs insert distinction front-loaded. No restatement of the title or filler.

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?

Covers the write-gating prerequisites, backup, Studio-closed requirement, per-field caps, and names the return payload (pack_path, wrote, status, error), which an agent needs to interpret a partial failure despite the output schema existing. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description adds real meaning: confirm is tied to a second environmental gate and to a specific subset of pack sections, and the length caps (name/title 100, description 500, prompt 20000) constrain values the schema leaves unconstrained via additionalProperties: true.

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 concrete action and resource ('Save a Studio pack as JSON') and immediately clarifies the split between pack-only content and content that can be inserted into Studio. An agent can distinguish it from generate_persona (single persona) without opening the schema. Minor friction: the verb 'save' reads slightly like export, and the sibling export_workflow_pack is never named as the contrasting alternative.

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?

Gives explicit conditional rules: tools/toolsets/skills stay pack-only, personas/prompts insert only with confirm=true AND MSTY_ALLOW_STUDIO_WRITES=1, after a backup, and only when Studio is closed. It also routes the single-persona case to generate_persona by name, so both the when and the alternative are covered.

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