import_blended_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It implies a definition/mutation ('Define', 'import') but discloses nothing about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or whether it creates/modifies a blend. Only the vaguest hint of intent is present.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is concise. However, the brevity stems from under-specification rather than economy of wording, leaving it merely structurally adequate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a blend-related definition tool with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no usage context, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it correctly.

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 0% for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Secondary source field' loosely gestures at secondary_datasource and field, but 'alias' is never explained and no format or constraint guidance is added.

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 phrase 'Define a primary aggregate proxy for a secondary source field' is domain jargon that never states plainly what the tool does. It does not name the resource (a blended field / data-source blend) or distinguish itself from the closely related sibling configure_datasource_blend, so an agent cannot confidently tell them apart.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. With siblings like configure_datasource_blend, add_calculated_field, and configure_datasource_blend present, the description offers no routing signal at all.

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