Import a shared factory plan from a link, sfplan: line, or .sfplan.json file to create a new editable plan.
Import a shared plan (link, sfplan: line or file) as a new plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | the copy's name; the shared name if omitted | |
| save | No | ||
| text | Yes | a plan share link, a sfplan: line, or a .sfplan.json file's text | |
| as_of | No | pin to one save: the sav:… token an earlier answer printed | |
| world | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds that the result is a new plan (i.e., source is copied rather than mutated), but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, save/world interactions, or failure modes.
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 with no filler. Compact and easy to parse, though correspondingly thin on required context.
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, non-idempotent tool with five parameters, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters (save, world), the description is too sparse. It doesn't tell the agent what the import returns, how save/world affect the copy, or what happens on name collisions.
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 60%. The description restates the input forms already documented for the text parameter ('link, sfplan: line or file'), adding no new detail. The save and world parameters have no schema description and are not explained in the description either.
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 resource (a shared plan), plus the supported input forms and the outcome (a new plan). It is clear enough to distinguish from share_plan, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like plans or plan_from_factory.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as plans, share_plan, or plan_from_factory, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'when you have a shared plan to import.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.