load_factory_browser_item

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds the 'guarded' qualifier, implying the operation is protected, and the plan/load duality is visible. However, it doesn't disclose what 'guarded' means, whether loading replaces existing devices, or what happens on a track with existing content. With annotations present, a 3 is fair.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and target. It's compact and every word earns its place. Minor deduction for not naming the sibling or the dry-run flow explicitly, but the sentence is efficient.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the plan/load workflow, what a 'guarded' track means, or how to obtain expectedStateVersion. The schema covers parameters, but the orchestration context (dry run first, then confirm) is only implied. Slightly below the minimum viable for a complex two-phase tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds the 'exact' qualifier to path and the 'guarded' context to trackId, but doesn't explain the relationship between planHash and confirmationToken beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Plan or load') and a specific resource ('one exact factory browser item') with a target ('guarded ordinary, Return, or Main track'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling load_browser_item by the 'factory' qualifier and 'exact' path requirement, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 implies a two-phase usage: plan first (dryRun) then load with confirmationToken, and the schema's dryRun/confirmationToken fields reinforce this. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs load_browser_item or search_browser_item_metadata, but the 'factory' and 'exact' qualifiers give clear context. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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