import_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the file format, validation behavior, and that remaining columns become searchable attributes. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing data, permissions needed, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two clearly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then file format and validation. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers input format and validation but does not mention output, error handling, or effects on existing data. Given the presence of an output schema and sibling tools like abort_import, more context on the import process and potential failures would be beneficial.

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 100%, so parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that the TSV first column header must match metadata_type and that values must correspond to existing individuals. It also clarifies the validation default and option to skip it, which goes beyond the schema's concise descriptions.

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 verb 'import' and the resource 'individual metadata into an existing Gigwa database'. It specifies the file format (TSV) and structure, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from similar tools like validate_metadata.

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 usage for importing metadata TSV files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like validate_metadata. It gives file format requirements but lacks explicit context on prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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