bundle_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two important behaviors: 'never substitute missing plugins' and 'includes frozen playback'. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing projects are affected, whether the operation is reversible), error handling, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes two key behavioral notes. It has no filler or redundancy, and every clause adds value. It is an exemplar of concise writing for a tool definition.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It conveys the core purpose and two behaviors, but it lacks information on return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., that the package must be validated), and what 'frozen playback' entails in practice. For a tool of this simplicity, it is adequate but leaves room for the agent to have questions.

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 implicitly references 'project_id' via 'under a new project ID', but it does not explicitly map to the schema's parameters or explain 'path'. There is no mention of format, validation, or constraints for either parameter. The description adds only a slight hint, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from the names alone.

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 states a specific verb ('import') and resource ('validated portable package') and adds a scoping constraint ('under a new project ID') and a key rule ('never substitute missing plugins'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'project_import', which could also involve importing a project. The name 'bundle_import' helps, but the description alone doesn't draw the distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'project_import' or 'bundle_export'. It does not state any prerequisites (e.g., that the package must be validated beforehand) or any explicit 'when not to use' conditions. The only contextual hint is the phrase 'validated portable package', which implies a prior validation step, but it is not spelled out.

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