odoo_import_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: no volume limit, atomic per batch, check mode validates without writing, run mode imports, and mapping to 'id' makes imports re-runnable without duplicates. It could mention permissions or error handling, but the core side effects are covered.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by mode explanations and a mapping example. The mapping JSON is long but essential for understanding the parameter. No fluff, though it could be slightly more concise without losing value.

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?

With an output schema present, return values don't need elaboration. The description covers the import workflow, modes, mapping semantics, atomicity, and re-run safety, providing sufficient context for a complex import tool. Missing parameter details for sheet/header_row are minor gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'mapping' parameter with a concrete example and describes 'mode' values, but it leaves 'path', 'sheet', 'batch_size', and 'header_row' largely unexplained. The compensation is partial, justifying a 3.

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 imports a local .xlsx/.csv file, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like odoo_create/odoo_write by emphasizing file-based import from disk, and it outlines three distinct modes (inspect/check/run) that clarify its purpose.

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 clear usage context by explaining the chaining of modes and the mapping format, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like odoo_upsert or odoo_create. It gives workflow guidance without exclusions, earning a 4.

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