Import from compendium

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

Annotations already communicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent hints. The description goes beyond these by explaining the fresh-id guarantee, the never-overwrite behavior, and the exact handling of ambiguous names (refused with ids). No contradiction with annotations exists, and this extra disclosure helps the agent predict side effects.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the main action, then adds the critical safety property, then covers name-handling nuance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool title.

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 5 parameters and complete schema descriptions, plus the extra behavioral context, the tool is reasonably self-contained. The only notable gap is the lack of a success/return description and no acknowledgment of the specialized sibling tool, but for the complexity present the description is adequate.

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. The description does reinforce name-matching behavior with 'Names are matched as a whole; an ambiguous name is refused with the ids', but this largely duplicates what the schema already says for entryName. It does not add meaningful new semantics for packId, entryId, newName, or folderPath beyond the schema.

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 says exactly what the tool does: 'Copy a document out of a compendium into the world' and enumerates the supported types (playlists, scenes, journals, actors, roll tables, items, macros, cards). It also draws a clear contrast with manual drag-and-drop, giving the agent a way to distinguish this operation from a common 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?

The description gives a clear context (copying from compendium to world) and an implicit reason to prefer this over manual drag because it never overwrites. However, it does not explicitly mention any sibling tools or conditions for when to choose this over a more specialized import like create-actor-from-compendium or export-to-compendium, so selection guidance is incomplete.

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