make_editable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a licensed Spine editor CLI is required and that the importer may make repairs it then reports, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits whether existing files are overwritten, what happens to unsupported features, and any failure/auth mode.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the secondary reporting behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the high-level action and the repair-reporting behavior but leaves both parameters and any return details unaddressed. Adequate at a minimum, with clear gaps an agent would benefit from closing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no information about either parameter. It doesn't clarify what form `project` takes (a directory, a .spine path, a project name) or what `out_spine` controls, leaving both inputs 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?

States a specific verb (import) and a specific output artifact (an editable .spine file via the licensed Spine editor CLI), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like export_runtime or validate. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer in ambiguous cases, but the verb+resource pairing is clear.

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 description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_psd, make_sample, or export_runtime, nor does it state any prerequisites beyond an implied CLI license. Nothing tells the agent under what conditions make_editable is the right call.

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