create_import_set_row

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

Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds the 'WRITE_ENABLED=true' requirement, which is additional context. It does not disclose behaviors like validation, error handling, or side effects beyond what the schema (e.g., 'Must already exist' for staging_table) provides. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the action, context, and a key requirement. No extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action. Every part earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the sys_id of the created row). This is a gap for a creation tool. It also lacks information about validation, required fields in 'data', or behavior on duplicate rows. Given the complexity of nested objects and the missing output schema, the description is incomplete for confident usage.

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 the schema describes both parameters with clear descriptions. The description echoes the purpose but adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships (e.g., what keys are valid in 'data'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance schema-provided semantics.

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 'Insert a row into an Import Set staging table', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from other create tools like create_record because it targets Import Set staging tables, not regular records. The phrase 'for later transformation' adds context about its purpose in the data flow.

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 includes the notable requirement 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a clear usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_record or bulk_create_records), nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context of 'Import Set staging table' implies a specific use case, but explicit guidance is limited.

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