Import Poietic plane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the identity modes and default behavior ('require'; object IDs must match), which is useful, but it does not describe conflict handling, whether the import overwrites existing content, or what the result of the operation is.

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 concise and front-loaded: the primary purpose is stated first, followed by a compact explanation of the identity modes. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and identity semantics, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out important operational details such as side effects, conflict behavior, error conditions, or what is returned after a successful import. It is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation-style tool.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters and the enum values. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining what each identity mode means and clarifying that 'require' is the default, going beyond the schema's bare parameter definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Import'), the resource ('a plane'), the source ('another poietic design file'), and the destination ('the current design'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like export or validation 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?

The description provides a clear usage context: importing a plane from another file into the current design. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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