Import a user figure template

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool 'never executes code or stores original absolute paths' and that Transfer Packages enter as 'draft visual references.' These are meaningful safety and behavioral details not present in annotations or schema, and they do not contradict the annotations.

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 three sentences, every one earning its place: the action, the key safety behavior, and the migration guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 16-parameter tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential modes, import result state, safety properties, and alternative tool selection. Parameter details are appropriately left to the schema, especially since key path parameters already have schema descriptions and an output schema exists.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 16 parameters. It references 'figure/code' and 'ZIP', which maps to codePaths/packagePath, and mentions draft visual references, but most optional metadata parameters such as tags, title, license, reviewStatus, and assetKind are left entirely to schema 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 opens with specific actions: 'Copy a user-supplied figure/code or validate and import a Figure Transfer Package ZIP.' It clearly names two distinct input modes, uses specific verb-resource pairs, and differentiates itself from siblings by flagging direct-write as legacy versus the plan/apply alternatives.

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 explicitly states that new Agents should use figure_library_plan_import and figure_library_apply_import instead, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance and naming alternatives. This is a model example of usage differentiation.

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