Plan Published-template bundle import as Working

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context about verifying exactness, handling immutable assets, and not inheriting source approval. It does not contradict the annotations, and it goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action sequence, no filler. The second sentence adds a critical non-inheritance rule. Every word earns its place.

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 is adequate for a planning tool: it states the purpose and key rule. But with no output schema and no parameter explanations, the agent must infer mode semantics and expected result behavior. It could be more complete about what the plan contains or how it differs from apply_template_bundle_import.

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 the burden for explaining parameters. It implies 'Published-template bundle' maps to bundleDirectory and 'Working Revision' relates to mode, but it does not explain the three parameters explicitly, especially the mode enum values (create, update_published, update_working) or the roles of targetTemplateId. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 uses specific action verbs ('Verify', 'copy', 'plan') and clearly identifies the resource ('Published-template bundle') and the deliverable ('Working Revision'). It distinguishes this planning tool from the paired apply tool and other plan siblings by stating it plans an import, not applying it.

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 gives clear context: it is for verifying an exact Published-template bundle and planning a Working Revision, not for applying changes. The rule 'Source approval is provenance only and is never inherited' is an important usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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