Plan a direct user-template import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the internal steps: validating files, calculating stable identity and duplicate evidence, and producing a concurrency-bound plan. It reinforces the no-write behavior ('No files are written') without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause serves a purpose. It is concise yet informative, and the explicit 'No files are written' is a valuable clarity addition.

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 are covered elsewhere. The description gives the high-level purpose but lacks context on how parameters map to file paths, what 'direct-import files' means, or the relationship to sibling import tools. It is adequate for a planning tool but leaves several operational gaps.

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, but it provides no explanation of any of the 15 parameters. It mentions 'direct-import files' without linking them to parameters like codePaths or imagePath, and does not clarify how input fields influence the plan. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's raw property 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's function: 'Read and validate direct-import files, calculate stable identity and duplicate evidence, and return a concurrency-bound plan.' It specifies a concrete verb (read/validate/calculate/return) and resource (direct-import files, plan), and distinguishes itself from siblings like figure_library_import or figure_library_apply_import by emphasizing it only plans and writes nothing.

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 conveys clear context: this is a planning stage that performs no writes, which implicitly indicates it should be used before actually importing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full 5.

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