import_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return type (success/failure with job details) but lacks crucial details: whether the import is synchronous or asynchronous, whether it appends or replaces data, permissions needed, and rate limits.

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 description is relatively concise, with purpose stated upfront and an Args list for parameters. It could be slightly more compact by integrating parameter descriptions more efficiently, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description explains parameters and return type, but given the tool's complexity (data import) and lack of annotations, it omits important behavioral details like idempotency, overwrite behavior, and side effects. An output schema exists but its content is not used to reduce need for description. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section adds value: it explains that 'table' must exist, 'search_uri' is for searching data files, 'branch' is a branch name, and 'namespace' defaults to 'bauplan'. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema's types.

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 imports data into an existing table, specifying verb ('import') and resource ('data into a specified existing table'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_table (which creates a new table) and run_query (which queries data).

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 implies the tool should be used after the table exists ('table needs to exist beforehand'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., project_run, run_query_to_csv) or provide conditions for not using it.

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