workspace_import

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotation that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). It omits details like whether directories are created automatically, what happens on overwrite, or how format detection works.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail for a tool with 5 parameters. It is under-specified and relies too heavily on the schema, reducing its standalone value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, a mutation with readOnlyHint=false), the description fails to cover key behaviors like the effect of overwrite, format requirements, or the output. While an output schema exists, the description does not bridge the gap for an agent to understand usage context.

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 already describes 4 out of 5 parameters (80% coverage), so the description adds little extra meaning. The description does not explain the purpose of individual parameters, but the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 'workspace object', and specifies 'notebook or file', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'workspace_export' or 'workspace_delete'. However, it could be more specific about the path and creation semantics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like 'dbfs_put' or 'workspace_read_file'. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as required permissions or the behavior when the path already exists.

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