db_import_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals critical safety constraints: the requirement for prior preview and adjudication, and the rejection when merge=false with a non-empty database. This adds valuable context about side effects and operation viability, though it does not detail success behavior or the meaning of 'adjudication'.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately follows with critical conditions. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or vague filler.

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 moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the workflow prerequisite (preview and adjudication) and a key edge-case rejection. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema exists. It could briefly mention what happens on success, but the current level is sufficient for an AI to select and invoke the tool 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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the behavior of the 'merge' parameter (false leads to rejection if DB non-empty), which is a key semantic. However, it does not clarify 'path' or 'format', leaving those to the schema. The description adds meaningful context for the most consequential parameter but under-specifies the others.

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 tool performs the actual data import ('实际导入数据'), distinguishing it from the preview sibling by explicitly mentioning the prerequisite of preview and adjudication. The verb 'import' and resource 'data' are specific, and the condition 'merge=false 且库非空会被拒绝' adds further specificity.

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 explicit preconditions: must preview first and pass adjudication before applying. It also warns about the rejection condition for merge=false with non-empty database, which serves as a clear 'when not to use' hint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when merge=true would be appropriate, leaving some room for inference.

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