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

Annotations already declare the mutation as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: it explains that rows persist as transactions, an account may be materialised, and both happen inside the same DB transaction, which conveys atomicity and side effects.

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 entire definition is one tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key side effects and confirmation requirement. There is no redundant or empty text.

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 mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, atomicity, side effects, and the confirmation requirement. It does not describe failure behavior or return values, but annotations and schema already carry the safety and idempotency details.

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 description clarifies that import_id refers to a previously-previewed import and reiterates that confirmation must be true. However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the optional idempotencyKey, and the confirmation behavior is already described in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource — "Commit a previously-previewed Import by id" — and states the concrete outcome: parsed rows become transactions and a suggested account may be materialised. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as add_transaction, bulk_add_transactions, and import_from_text.

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 clearly scopes usage to committing a previously-previewed Import by id and notes the required confirmation flag. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or directly route the agent to alternatives, but the context is strong enough to select it correctly.

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