Import CSV

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that cells are overwritten and by detailing type coercion and formula-handling rules, though it does not cover auth, errors, or return behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action and overwrite behavior are front-loaded, followed by the high-value conversion rules.

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 destructive import tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, overwrite behavior, and important type-conversion semantics. Annotations carry the safety profile, and the schema covers most parameters, so only minor details such as error handling or header treatment are absent.

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 high at 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic detail beyond the schema: numbers, booleans and ISO dates become values; leading zeros, >15-digit values and ambiguous dates stay text; formula-like text is never evaluated. This clarifies how parameters such as as_text and date_order affect parsing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Import a CSV file into a sheet') plus scope ('from `at`, overwriting cells'). This distinguishes it from siblings like export_csv and import_workbook without needing to name them.

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 says what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as import_workbook or write_range. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose.

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