import_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the file is read from disk (side effect), returns an import object with importId, and that the operation is asynchronous (status starts as SCHEDULED). It also specifies file type and size limits. Missing details on error behavior or required permissions, but overall transparent.

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?

Two sentences plus a limits note: highly concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers input, process, output (import object with importId), follow-up (poll or wait), and constraints (file types/size). Minor gap: no mention of error handling or what happens if file path is invalid.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by indicating that filePath must be absolute, entityName must match entities_list, and mappingId from mappings_list. This practical context goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'uploads a CSV/XLSX file and starts an import using an existing mapping', providing specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like import_auto (which might auto-generate mapping) and import_csv (which might handle CSV directly), but lacks an explicit differentiation statement.

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?

Description provides clear context on when to use: it requires an existing mapping and an absolute file path. It mentions that the status starts as SCHEDULED and suggests polling or using import_wait. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like import_auto for automatic mapping.

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