Create Importer From Prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the full sequence (generate, validate locally, create via POST), the return object, the abort condition (no LLM provider or validation failure), and the required credentials (ANTHROPIC_API_KEY or OPENAI_API_KEY plus CSVBox credentials). This is comprehensive and honest about side effects (it creates a sheet).

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?

Three sentences deliver the purpose, flow, return value, abort conditions, and required credentials without waste. The main action is front-loaded, followed by essential caveats. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential decision points: what it does, what it returns, when it aborts, and what credentials are needed. Missing is any detail on the validation failure behavior beyond aborting, and there is no example output or error handling guidance, but these are not critical for invoking 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 100%, and the description for 'prompt' in the schema already explains it as a natural-language description of the importer. The tool description adds no extra detail about how the prompt is used, format expectations, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate ... then create') and a clear resource (CSVBox sheet via POST /1.1/sheet). It is distinct from siblings like create_sheet (which likely creates without generation) and generate_sheet_json (which likely generates without creation). The flow is explicit and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies use when you have a natural-language prompt and want a complete, validated sheet. It notes that an LLM provider must be configured and that it aborts if not, which hints at alternative workflows, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer create_sheet or generate_sheet_json over this tool. The context is clear but exclusions are not explicit.

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