Import Contingent Values

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial operational disclosure: strict manifest verification, double-gate plan-change requirements, exact target echo, and a fixed confirmation phrase. These are meaningful preconditions beyond the annotations, and nothing contradicts them.

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, dense sentence front-loads the action, source, modes, and validation requirement, then adds the gating preconditions. There is 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, 6-parameter bulk import with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and safety gates well. It is still incomplete on usage routing and full parameter semantics, but it supplies the critical behavioral context an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 carry parameter meaning. It adds semantics for import_type (UNION/REPLACE), confirmation (fixed phrase), and expected_dataset (exact target echo), but it does not explain dataset_path, field_groups_csv, or contingent_values_csv directly, leaving several required parameters opaque.

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?

Uses a specific verb (导入/import), resource (字段组和条件值/field groups and contingent values), source (INPUT_ROOTS 内的官方 CSV/official CSV inside INPUT_ROOTS), and mode (UNION/REPLACE). It is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like add_contingent_value or create_field_group, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides context that this is for importing official CSV files, but gives no when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance. It never says to prefer add_contingent_value for single values or list_contingent_values for inspection, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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