setup_import_mdm

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 several behavioral traits: automatic creation of inputs/outputs, support for both transform ordering scenarios, live-verified behavior with a specific date, auto-execution of UPDATE_AUTO transforms, and server-side processing. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema shows. It doesn't mention side effects like overwriting existing inputs/outputs, but the disclosed traits are substantial.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The ordering details and auto-execution note are valuable but add length; they are not wasted. The date-stamped verification adds credibility but could be trimmed. Overall, every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly verbose for a tool description.

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 the tool's complexity (import with ordering nuances, auto-execution, server-side processing) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs. It doesn't explain return values or error conditions, but the description is complete enough for correct invocation. The lack of output schema is compensated by the detailed behavioral notes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the .mdm file and the Setup, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. The data_type enum is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'Import Create command' and 'inputs/outputs structure' indirectly clarifies the effect of setup_path and file_path, but not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Import'), a specific resource ('.mdm file into a Setup'), and the command used ('Import Create'). It also mentions the automatic creation of inputs/outputs structure, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_export_mdm and setup_get_inputs. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 context on when to use this tool: when importing data from an .mdm file into a Setup, and it notes suitability for large datasets due to server-side processing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it over siblings like setup_export_mdm. The ordering guidance about transforms is a bonus but not a direct alternative.

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