workiva_import_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Import' and lists parameters, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new file or overwrites), required permissions, or the return structure beyond having an output schema.

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 highly concise, consisting of a single leading sentence and a clear, tabular Args list. Every line serves a purpose with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are presumably covered. However, the description lacks context on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility), and differentiation from similar file tools. It is minimally complete for a 4-parameter tool but leaves gaps.

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 Args section adds meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Display name in Workiva', 'Original filename', 'Spreadsheet or Document', 'Local path to the file to upload'). Since schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), this extra context is valuable and compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 action: 'Import a local file (xlsx/docx) into Workiva.' This specifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like workiva_wdata_upload_file or workiva_import_style_guide. However, 'into Workiva' is slightly broad, lacking explicit mention of Spreadsheet or Document targets in the description.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_create_file or workiva_wdata_upload_file. The description only states the action and parameters without any contextual cues, exclusions, or alternatives.

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