import_opening_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the imported advice is not engine-verified. But it says nothing about mutation semantics – whether an import overwrites an existing plan, how source_version conflicts are handled, or what permissions are required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one behavioral caveat. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and undocumented nested fields, the description omits conflict/overwrite behavior and prerequisites. It is roughly minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to the source/source_date/source_version fields by saying 'dated, versioned ... with source attribution', but the remaining required fields (fen, name, plans, pawn_breaks, piece_placements, common_mistakes) are given no meaning anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb (import) and resource (dated, versioned opening teaching plan with source attribution), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like import_opening_statistics, import_opening_tsv, or import_study, which are also 'import' tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of why to choose this importer over import_opening_tsv, import_opening_statistics, or import_study. The only contextual hint is the verification caveat, which is not selection guidance.

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