vikunja_batch_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions error handling and dry-run, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is destructive (mutates state), permission requirements, or behavior on duplicate imports. Bare minimum but not comprehensive.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and key features. No wasted words; every word adds value.

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?

Given 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on data formatting, error behavior, limits, and return values. An import tool requires more complete guidance.

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 should add meaning to parameters. It only hints at 'format' (CSV/JSON) and 'dryRun' (dry-run support). Other parameters like 'data', 'projectId', and 'skipErrors' are not explained, leaving the agent to infer from 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: importing tasks in bulk from CSV or JSON. It also mentions error handling and dry-run support, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like vikunja_task_bulk which may handle other bulk operations.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context is given; it simply states what the tool does without recommending scenarios.

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