hub_import

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose that adoption is the default behavior and that adopt=false suppresses it, but it fails to reveal the likely destructive consequence — adopting a new plan presumably replaces the current working plan. It also says nothing about remote fetching, sharing requirements, or what a non-adopting import actually does.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler. The example URL earns its place by pinning down the accepted input format precisely, and the primary action plus the parameter exception are both front-loaded. Every part contributes.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the missing details are material: what happens to the current working plan when adopting (overwrite vs replace), what adopt=false actually accomplishes, and any prerequisites such as the base being public/shared. An agent can invoke the tool but cannot predict its side effects.

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 documents idOrUrl well by giving a concrete example URL, and it states adopt's default (true) plus its exception behavior. However, the meaning of adopt=false remains ambiguous — whether the base is still opened for inspection and what effect that has — leaving a real semantic gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('another player's hub base') and spells out the outcome ('adopt it as the working plan unless adopt=false'). The 'another player's' qualifier hints at how this differs from the plan_* siblings, but no sibling is named or explicitly contrasted, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage context is implied — call this when you have another player's hub id/URL and want it as your plan — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings like plan_new, plan_load, or plan_save. The adopt flag hints at a behavioral fork but doesn't say when one would want adopt=false.

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