topvisor_import_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions return fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like handling of duplicates, error conditions, or idempotency. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and return fields. However, it could be better structured by grouping related parameters or providing a usage example.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter interactions, error handling, and response structure beyond the returned fields. Not sufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 (22%). The description adds meaning to group_name and keywords (e.g., including group_name in CSV headers), but most parameters like folder_id, move_duplicate, etc. remain unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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 verb 'import' and resource 'keywords into a project via CSV', and lists return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like list_keywords or add_project by focusing on CSV import.

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 a condition for using group_name to assign keywords to groups, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like topvisor_get_summary or topvisor_check_positions. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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