import_file_to_kb

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

Annotations already cover safety (not read-only, not destructive) and open-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond them: parsing happens locally, content is delivered as text/markdown with sourceType='doc', and ingestion can be narrowed via pages/sheet. It does not warn that repeated calls will create duplicate documents (relevant given idempotentHint=false), which is the one missing behavioral 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?

Three tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded, followed by the format-specific parameters and then the exclusion. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 10-param, no-output-schema ingestion tool this is nearly complete: input types, parsing behavior, destination, and the image exclusion with a routing alternative. Missing only edge detail such as size limits or what a repeat call does to the KB.

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 coverage is 60%, so the schema already documents many params including pages and sheet. The description reinforces which parameters apply to which file types (pages→PDF, sheet→spreadsheet), but leaves url/data/path/mimeType/asMarkdown unexplained, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: it names the exact operation (read a file, create a KB document on a target agent), lists the supported file types, and explicitly labels itself a shortcut over the underlying create_kb_doc. An agent can distinguish it from create_kb_doc, read_pdf, and read_image without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the supported formats, the PDF/spreadsheet selectors, and the negative case with a named alternative (images → read_image). No explicit mention of when to prefer it over the composite read_pdf + create_kb_doc pair, but the framing as a shortcut makes the intent clear.

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