import-item

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains that the tool copies artwork, full system data, and activities, and it details optional on-copy tweaks. It also describes the different behaviors when targeting an actor versus the world, including the lootCopy mechanism and token instance treatment. However, it omits potential side effects like duplicate handling or error behavior on invalid inputs, preventing a perfect score.

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 structured well: it starts with the main purpose and preference, then provides a workflow, and finally details optional parameters. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value—no fluff. While it could be more concise, the structure is logical and front-loaded, earning a 4.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: the tool's core behavior, when to use it, the target distinction (actor vs world), loot handling, and SRD restrictions. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema. Some minor edge cases (e.g., error handling) are missing, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as explaining the lootCopy default for magic items, the SRD restriction for packId, and the token instance nuance for actorIdentifier. It also provides a workflow that ties parameters together, which enhances understanding. Thus, a score of 4 is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: COPY an existing item from a compendium pack onto an actor or world Items sidebar. It uses a specific verb ('COPY') and resource ('existing item'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add-item by stating a preference for real gear. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from alternatives.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: it advises to prefer import-item over add-item for any real piece of gear, provides a three-step workflow (search-compendium, import-item, refine), and specifies when to use add-item (genuine homebrew). It also warns against using SRD packs. This level of detail gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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