Import private seed packet

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

The description discloses several key behaviors beyond the annotations: requires absolute path, refuses symlinks, accepts only packets with purpose: seed, always imports to a fixed inbox location, and refuses duplicate packet IDs instead of overwriting. These are important operational details that an agent needs to know. Annotations only state mutation/world-supports/destructive hints, which are consistent with the description.

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 a single sentence that packs all essential information without fluff. Every clause adds value: usage trigger, reviewed status, private context, path requirements, purpose restriction, destination, duplicate policy. Excellent front-loading and no wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (import with safety constraints) and absence of output schema, the description fully covers invocation context, validation rules, destination, and conflict behavior. No important aspect seems missing; the agent has enough to correctly invoke and anticipate outcomes.

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%: all three parameters are described in the schema. The description adds some context about absolute path and purpose: seed which is also in schema, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema for actorName or asReviewed. Baseline 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific use case: 'Use when the user points at a seed packet file they have already reviewed and wants that carried-forward private context in this store.' This clearly states the tool's function (import reviewed seed packet) and distinguishes it from generic import_packet or create_seed_packet by focusing on reviewed, private seed packets.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' context and lists constraints (absolute path, refuses symlinks, purpose: seed, imports to .notch/private/inbox/, refuses duplicates). This effectively tells when to use it and what it will/won't accept, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative. Still strong guidance.

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