pg_import_table_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the import action but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether it overwrites existing data (hinted by 'truncateFirst' parameter but not explained), authentication needs (implied by 'connectionString' but not stated), error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Import data from JSON or CSV file into a table') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, low schema coverage (17%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., data overwriting, error cases), parameter usage, and comparison to siblings, leaving the agent with inadequate context to use the tool effectively.

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 low (17%), with only 'inputPath' documented. The description adds minimal value by mentioning JSON/CSV formats, which aligns with the 'format' enum, but doesn't explain other parameters like 'connectionString', 'truncateFirst', or 'delimiter'. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves most parameters semantically unclear.

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 action ('Import data') and resource ('from JSON or CSV file into a table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pg_export_table_data or pg_copy_between_databases, which would require more specific context about when to choose import vs. other data movement operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., table must exist), compare to siblings like pg_copy_between_databases for database-to-database transfers, or specify scenarios where import is preferred over direct SQL execution via pg_execute_mutation.

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