import_contacts_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose useful constraints: header row optional, email required, auto-registration of non-builtin columns, and 5 MB/10,000-row limits. However, it does not say whether the import is synchronous, what the response shape is, or whether existing contacts are modified beyond the schema's on_conflict parameter.

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?

Four short sentences, all informative, with the purpose and endpoint front-loaded and constraints following in a logical order. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description reasonably covers input format and key limits. The main gap is the lack of any statement about the result of the operation (e.g., success response, async job, counts), which is important for a bulk import tool with no annotations or output schema to lean on.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some redundancy (header optional, email required) plus one genuinely new constraint (5 MB/10,000 rows), but it does not substantially enrich understanding of audience_id or the conflict-resolution semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb-resource pair: 'Bulk-import contacts from CSV text' and gives the exact endpoint. It is clearly distinct from the sibling import_contacts_batch by centering on CSV text rather than a batch payload, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus import_contacts_batch, import_sheet_contacts, or the single create_contact tool. The CSV-text focus is implied, but the description never states conditions or excludes alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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