import_vcf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses mutating side effects (upload/create/append), the destructive clear_project_data=True behavior, and the async wait=False progress-token mode. It does not discuss prerequisites like an active Gigwa connection, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 focused sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and file constraints, followed by the two behavior-modifying flags. There is no filler or redundant context.

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 9-parameter import with high schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the missing process-level details: what gets created or appended, when data is replaced, and how to switch to async mode. That is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the create/append relationship among module/project/run and highlighting clear_project_data and wait; it does not mention ploidy or skip_monomorphic, but the schema handles those.

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 the exact action: import a VCF file (.vcf or .vcf.gz) into Gigwa. It is specific about the resource and file type, which naturally distinguishes it from metadata and DArT import siblings.

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?

Clear context is given: this tool uploads a VCF to create or append module/project/run, and the optional flags modify the workflow by replacing data or returning immediately. It does not explicitly name alternatives like import_dartseq or import_metadata, so it stops just short of full when-not guidance.

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