Import test cases from CSV

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals request limits and file size constraints, but does not state what happens on invalid CSV format, whether a partially valid batch is imported, or whether existing test cases are affected. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, the required format, and the two main constraints with no filler. The most important operational limits are front-loaded, making the definition easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could add expected result behavior or error handling, but an agent can reasonably invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 reinforces that filePath is a local CSV and that projectKey identifies the target project, but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. It does not exceed the baseline.

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 specifies a clear verb ('import'), a resource ('test cases'), a destination ('into a project'), and a source format ('local CSV file'). It also names the specific QA Touch sample format, which distinguishes this from generic import tools and from sibling create_test_case.

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 frames this as a bulk import tool and provides concrete usage constraints (max 100 test cases, max 2 MB). It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_test_case for single inserts, but the bulk-vs-single distinction is strongly implied.

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