Import Circuit Bundle

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the mutation and non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds that content is written 'into the workspace', but says nothing about overwrite behavior, conflicts, or failure modes for an import that will not be idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers the primary action without padding. The odd double-backtick markup around ``.asc`` is a minor blemish but the structure is otherwise 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 mutating import tool with no output schema and an incomplete parameter schema, the description should clarify what the import produces and how the workspace/destination interact. It leaves an agent unable to reason about placement and result of the imported circuit.

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 coverage is only 33% and the description only partially compensates by implying bundle_path is a zip or .asc. It does not explain destination_dir, nor how it relates to workspace_root (which is the only parameter with a schema description). Two of three parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 names specific verbs ('unpack', 'copy') and resources (a zip of schematics, a .asc file), so the agent knows it imports circuit content. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent import-like siblings such as materialize_reference_circuit, materialize_recipe, or create_schematic.

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?

It hints at two modes ('or copy one .asc') but gives no guidance on when to use a zip versus a single .asc, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The agent must infer the branch condition from the input path alone.

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