Confirm Spreadsheet Import

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

Goes well past the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing quota accounting (successful and skipped rows consume quota, errors and unprocessed rows are refunded) and by ruling out email unlocking and sending, which disambiguates it from start_email_unlock and start_bulk_email. It doesn't cover partial-failure or cancellation behavior, which matters for a destructive action.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then quota behavior, then side-effect exclusions. No filler; each sentence adds distinct information.

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?

Covers the high-risk side effects an agent needs to warn a user about, but leaves the parameters entirely undescribed and offers nothing about the outcome (no output schema exists), so an agent cannot know how to form the reference or what it gets back.

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 0% across three required parameters, and the description explains none of them. The polymorphic reference union (type 'job' vs 'handoff' plus a UUID) and the const-true user_authorized have no explanation anywhere, which is exactly the gap the description should fill.

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 and resource: start the already-uploaded canonical import, gated on user approval. This clearly separates it from create_campaign_creator_import, get_campaign_creator_import, and cancel_campaign_creator_import, though those siblings are not named 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?

The phrase 'only after user approval' gives a real precondition and implies it runs after an upload and inspection step. It never says to use create_campaign_creator_import first, nor when to choose cancel/get instead, so the routing is only implied.

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