unpack_context

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the tool performs a write operation ('place content') and mentions 'safe conflict resolution' as a behavior, but omits concrete details such as backup creation, preview mode, or what 'safe' means in terms of specific conflict strategies. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, destination, and a key behavior. No filler words; every phrase contributes meaning.

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 4-parameter import tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and destination. Optional behaviors like preview and backup are fully documented in the schema, so the high-level description plus detailed schema is sufficiently complete.

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%, and the schema provides clear descriptions for all parameters including zipPath, previewOnly, createBackup, and conflictStrategy. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') and identifies the resource ('shared context package') and destination ('Cursor-Cortex storage locations'). It clearly distinguishes from inverse tools like generate_context_zip and other context-manipulation siblings.

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 context is clear: this tool is for importing context packages. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusionary conditions, such as when to use migrate_context_files instead. Still, the intended usage is immediately apparent.

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