plan_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'does not touch existing media' line largely restates the safety profile rather than adding new behavior. The description does not disclose what a 'proposal' consists of, whether it is persisted, or what the follow-up call would be, which is the missing behavioral context here.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the key constraint (planning only, non-destructive) is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'proposal' returns (e.g., target library, path, metadata fields) and how to act on it. Given the import pipeline implied by the sibling tools, this return-value context is a real gap, though the mutation-safety aspect is fully covered.

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 single fileName parameter relies entirely on the description, which at least clarifies it is a 'newly selected filename' rather than an existing path. It does not state whether a full path or bare name is expected, nor the 1-180 length constraint's practical meaning. With only one simple parameter this is adequate but thin.

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: 'Propose organization' for 'a newly selected filename.' The scope qualifier 'only' and the note about existing media make the intent distinguishable as a planning/dry-run step. It stops short of naming a sibling or saying what kind of 'organization' is proposed (library, path, metadata), so it is not a 5.

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?

'for a newly selected filename only' and 'Does not touch existing media' imply this is used before an import, not for existing items, which is useful implicit guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to call it versus upload_media, update_import_metadata, or inspect_import_metadata, nor whether it precedes or follows an upload.

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