origin_import_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool imports into a 'new' worksheet, yet parameters like book_name and sheet_name suggest existing workbooks/worksheets can be specified, creating ambiguity. No mention of side effects, file existence requirements, error handling, or performance implications.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and object, with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It omits any mention of return values, error conditions, behavior when files or sheets don't exist, or the relationship between parameters like book_name and the 'new' worksheet claim.

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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% schema coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description lists file types which partially reinforces the path parameter but does not deepen understanding of other parameters like encoding or na_values.

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 specific file formats (CSV, TSV, etc.) into a new Origin worksheet. It uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('Origin worksheet'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like origin_read_worksheet or origin_write_worksheet.

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 usage for importing external data files into a new worksheet but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as origin_read_worksheet for reading existing data or origin_write_worksheet for writing data. No when-not or alternative references are given.

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