import_plan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses optional AI enrichment and credit usage via enrich parameter, and mentions the return value (goal with claim link and enriched step list). However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether it modifies existing data (likely creates new). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three focused sentences: main action, context of use, and key options/return. No waste, efficient for AI agent consumption.

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 9 parameters and nested objects with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (input, enrichment, output). It does not detail all parameters (e.g., priority, goal_context), but those have schema descriptions. The high-level flow is clear.

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 56%. Description adds meaning about pre-formulated plans and enrichment options, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. For instance, 'enrich' parameter is well-described in schema already. Baseline score applies.

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?

Description clearly states it imports a pre-formulated plan with steps/substeps into Unfold, using the verb 'import' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_goal by noting 'skips clarification entirely' and that it's for already structured plans from tools like Jira or Linear.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you already have a structured plan (e.g. from Jira, Linear, or your own planning tool)' and notes it 'skips clarification entirely'. This provides clear context for when to use, though it could explicitly state alternatives (e.g., 'use create_goal for plans needing clarification').

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