Spr import fhc bundle

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this concretely: apply "replaces the current pipe network with the bundle (undo history cleared, like opening a file)" and runs the design calculation. It also adds non-annotation context — check mode's field-by-field comparison, recalc default true, and the allowPartial limitation for older bundles — which is exactly the behavioral detail the agent needs.

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?

Purpose and the two modes are front-loaded, then the destructive consequence and the format exclusion follow. It is information-dense with little filler, though the trailing rule-reference bracket is slightly out of place for an agent-facing definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden; it explains what check compares (network settings, recalculated results, required source pressure, summary) but does not characterize the returned comparison output verbatim. For a destructive import tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: check is read-only and the default, apply replaces the network, recalc runs the design calc after loading, and allowPartial enables partial restore of bundles lacking bulc_model. This extends the schema rather than restating 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 names a specific verb and resource — loading a BULC "FHC-style" export bundle — and pins the accepted formats (zip, folder of CSVs, *_bulc_model.csv). It also explicitly excludes the FHC (Canute) program importer, which prevents confusion with a differently-scoped importer.

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 gives explicit mode-level guidance: check (default) changes nothing and compares, apply replaces the network. The negative scoping (not the FHC/Canute importer) also acts as a when-not. It stops short of routing the agent against the closest sibling (spr_import_network), so it is strong but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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