bulk_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes an import operation (which implies mutation/destructive potential) but doesn't disclose whether it overwrites existing data, requires authentication, validates data, handles partial failures, or what happens on conflict. For a bulk operation handling multiple tables, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentences, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point. However, it's slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity."

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?

This is a complex bulk operation on multiple tables with nested object data and no output schema. Given the complexity, the description should mention error handling, validation behavior, whether data is merged/appended/replaced, and what response to expect. None of this is provided. The description is incomplete for such a powerful operation.

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 100% for the single 'data' parameter, and the schema describes it as 'テーブル名をキー、エントリ配列を値とするオブジェクト' (object with table names as keys and entry arrays as values). The description adds '複数テーブル' context but doesn't add meaningful info beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full coverage.

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 'JSON一括インポート。複数テーブルのデータを一度にインポート' (JSON bulk import. Import data from multiple tables at once). This has a clear verb+resource and scope (bulk import of multiple tables), but it doesn't distinguish from the sibling 'bulk_export' (which is clearly export) or 'batch_operations' (which could overlap). The purpose is reasonably clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 it is used for importing data across multiple tables in one operation, which is a clear use case. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. individual create tools (create_* for each entity type), no mention of format requirements (JSON structure), no exclusion criteria, and no mention of whether it replaces or complements single-entity create operations. Context is implied but not explicit.

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