import_table_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether data is appended or overwritten, permission requirements, file size limits, or other side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 6 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate. It fails to cover file format specifics, behavior on conflict, or usage context for optional parameters.

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?

The description mentions high-level purpose but does not explain any parameters beyond the tool's summary. With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves 6 parameters undocumented, providing minimal added value.

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 imports a local CSV or XLSX file into an existing table, specifying the action, resource, and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_query_file and run_select.

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 implies the tool is for importing local files into an existing table, which differentiates it from querying, exporting, or describing tables. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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