import_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating import tool, yet it says nothing about overwrite behavior, required permissions, what happens to existing sheets, or how attach mode interacts with the running window. The schema parameter text covers attach somewhat, but the description itself adds only the .sta save note.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating purpose and the optional persistence outcome first. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than tight editing.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits return value, failure modes, attach semantics, and how text-vs-Excel options differ. The schema covers parameter names, but the agent still lacks the surrounding context needed to invoke this confidently.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no separator syntax, sheet selection, header-handling, or format details beyond what the schema already states.

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 (Import), the resource types (delimited text file or Excel workbook), and the destination (STATISTICA), plus the optional .sta persistence. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the reverse-direction sibling export_csv, but never names or contrasts siblings 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as statistica_open or export_csv. The only hint is the word 'optionally', which implies but does not explain the save path decision.

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