Apply a confirmed direct import plan

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds key behavioral context by disclosing that imported code is copied but never executed. This addresses a major safety concern and goes beyond the structured annotations, though further details about side effects or error handling are absent.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. The core action and safety property are presented succinctly, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 complexity (21 parameters, nested objects, 5 required fields, output schema), the description omits critical context about the broader workflow, such as how the plan digest is validated, what happens if validation fails, and how this relates to figure_library_plan_import or figure_library_import. The output schema helps with return values, but not with usage flow or failure behavior.

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 carries no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain the required fields like planDigest, expectedAction, expectedTemplateId, or operationId, nor the nested duplicateResolution/sourceConflictResolution structures, leaving agents to rely only on parameter names.

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 tool applies a confirmed direct import plan using the exact confirmed create/update/duplicate decision, distinguishing it from sibling tools like figure_library_plan_import or figure_library_import. It also adds a valuable safety qualifier that imported code is copied but never executed.

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 phrase 'confirmed direct import plan' implies this should be used after a plan has been approved, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage context is only implied, not fully articulated.

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