yaaif_agent_spec_release_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose important non-destructive behavior: creates a draft, preserves slot identities, and never changes release history. However, it omits details about permission requirements, version-mismatch behavior, validation failures, or whether the import is idempotent.

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, both informative, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key invariants stated immediately after. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has four parameters, a nested required document object, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to do more. It fails to explain how expected_version is used, what 'from Git' means in terms of the spec_id parameter, what change_summary is for, or what the resulting draft looks like. The description provides a good summary but not enough operational context for a correct call.

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 for the four parameters, but it provides no parameter-level meaning. There is no explanation of what spec_id refers to, how expected_version is validated, what the nested document must contain, or what change_summary is for. The agent is left to infer all of this from the schema structure alone.

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 names a specific verb (import), a specific resource (reviewed, hash-verified Scenario release manifest from Git), and the outcome (a new draft). It also states the two defining invariants: preserving bound slot identities and never changing release history. This clearly distinguishes the tool from export, promote, provenance, and other release-related siblings.

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: use this when importing an already reviewed and hash-verified release manifest as a draft. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as release_candidate_promote, release_export, or adoption tools. The usage is implied rather than explicit.

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