beel_create_customer_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further: it states exactly what is created, that existing tax identifiers are reported as duplicates rather than re-created, that over-limit files are rejected as a whole, and it enumerates the 400/413/422 codes. The one defect is the claim that 'Idempotency-Key' is 'required on this operation', which conflicts with the schema's 'Optional idempotency key' and could make an agent always set it.

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 definition is front-loaded with the payload rules and organized into tight bolded bullets, so an agent can scan to the topic it needs. It is long, and the closing sentence about the import 'never being governed by a boolean flag' is defensive padding rather than 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the failure-mode coverage is unusually complete, but nothing describes what a successful response returns (created count, duplicate list, partial-failure reporting), which is exactly what the missing output schema would have provided. The internal inconsistency about whether the idempotency key is required also leaves the caller unsure of the correct request shape.

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 67%, so the schema already carries part of the burden, but the description adds real meaning for `source`: per-format file type, size and record caps, and the distinct error codes. It adds little about the `file` payload itself (encoding, header requirements, how an .xlsx body is expressed as a string), which is the parameter most likely to be misused.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Imports customers into this company from an uploaded file.' It is also clearly separated from beel_create_customer, beel_create_customers_bulk, and beel_preview_customer_import, which would otherwise be plausible competitors.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to beel_preview_customer_import when no writes are wanted, and clarifies there is no boolean dry-run flag. It does not, however, say when to use this file import rather than beel_create_customers_bulk or beel_create_customer, which is the other realistic alternative an agent would weigh.

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