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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the guard that the commit is refused if a matched product or the file changed after the preview, the on_duplicate overwrite behavior, partial results at the plan's product limit, rows imported without details with extraction_status pending, an in_progress return for large imports, and a rate limit of 10 commits per person per hour. These additions are consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true (resume does not repeat rows).

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?

Six dense sentences, each carrying distinct operational information — approval gate, overwrite semantics, refusal condition, partial-limit behavior, pending-extraction rows, and resume/rate limits — with the critical guard and approval requirement front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 destructive, open-world, asynchronous-capable mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: preconditions, refusal semantics, partial-success reporting, the in_progress return signal, the resume path, and throttling. Nothing material about calling it correctly is left unstated.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema already documents confirm_token's origin, single-use and 10-minute lifetime, and resume's 'instead of confirm_token' semantics. The description frames the two-call protocol (job_id + confirm_token first, resume later) but does not explain where job_id comes from or add format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — committing a previewed CSV import exactly as previewed — and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling preview/start tools by requiring an approved preview plus a confirm_token. An agent can immediately tell this is the final write step of the import flow, not a preview or a fresh start.

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?

Gives clear activation conditions: only after the user approved the preview, with job_id and confirm_token, and resume: true after an interruption. It references the preview tool indirectly via 'the confirm_token from aalto_import_preview' but never explicitly excludes the sibling aalto_import_start, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully enumerated.

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