Import rule pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious state behavior: the import only registers the pack and does not activate it until a separate call. It stops short of 5 because it does not say what happens on re-importing a pack that already exists or whether existing rules are affected.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical state caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and for a single-parameter, non-destructive mutation the description covers the essential lifecycle fact (register, then install). The remaining gap is error/idempotency behavior on duplicate imports, which is minor given the annotations already flag idempotent=false.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the load via 'Pack manifest JSON object. Same shape produced by export_rule_pack.' The description names the bundle's logical contents (mocks, rewrites, redaction rules) but adds no format, encoding, or required-field detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Import a rule pack bundle') and enumerates the bundle contents (mocks + rewrites + redaction rules), immediately distinguishing it from install_rule_pack, export_rule_pack, and delete_rule_pack. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 establishes the two-step workflow by naming install_rule_pack as the required follow-up ('registered but not installed until install_rule_pack is called'), which is the core routing decision. It does not, however, state when to prefer importing a pack over creating rules individually, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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