import_project_archive

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

Discloses automatic verification before import, dry_run and require_runnable support, and SECRET_VALUES_REQUIRED reporting. With no annotations, the description provides moderate behavioral context but omits details on error handling, permissions, or side effects like cleanup on failure.

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 with no waste. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by key features. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers main behavioral aspects (auto-verification, dry_run, require_runnable, secret reporting) but does not describe the return value format or error conditions. For a complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, more detail on response behavior would be beneficial.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented there. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning dry_run and require_runnable as features, which is already in the schema. 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?

Clearly states verb (import), resource (verified portable archive), and destination (new local Run402 Core project). Distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_project_archive and inspect_project_archive by indicating it performs import with automatic verification.

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?

Implies usage contexts through mentions of dry_run (to verify only) and require_runnable (to enforce secret provisioning), but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use.

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