bundle_import_plan

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'without writing anything' and 'explicit read-only guarantee.' It adds behavioral detail about the return: 'create, idempotent, or conflict actions,' which is not in annotations or schema.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core function and guarantee; the second gives a direct call-to-action tying to bundle_import.

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 it's a preview tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes return categories (create/idempotent/conflict) and the read-only nature. It also clarifies the relationship to bundle_import. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable for this scope.

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 each parameter (json, path, asNew) is already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Plan' and identifies the resource 'task bundle import against this pack' with the scope 'without writing anything.' It clearly differentiates from bundle_import by stating it previews what the write would do.

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?

'Call to preview exactly what bundle_import with write: true would do' provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (as a pre-flight to bundle_import). It implies the alternative is bundle_import for actual execution, though it doesn't explicitly name it.

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