Update import request status

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: the admin-only permission requirement and that the summary is '(shown to the customer)'. It omits any state-transition rules (e.g. whether COMPLETED can revert), but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and states the discriminative enum values first, with the optional summary and permission note trailing. Nothing is wasted.

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 full annotation coverage, no output schema, and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The one meaningful gap is the absence of transition semantics, which an agent performing status updates would benefit from.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented by the schema itself. The description restates the enum values and the optional summary but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Mark'), resource ('import request'), and enumerates the exact target states (PROCESSING, COMPLETED, FAILED). Its resource scope clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_import_request and list_pending_imports, though it never names an alternative 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 '(admin only)' clause gives one useful prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_import_request or list_pending_imports, and no stated transition rules or when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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