manage_imports

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context by listing delete and process operations, plus a run_backup option to safeguard imports. It also explains the workflow, which goes beyond the annotation hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a concise workflow, a bulleted operation list, and a relevant field mappings section. Every part adds useful information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 multi-action tool, the description provides a high-level overview, workflow, and field mappings while leveraging annotations and output schema. It lacks detailed per-action behavior or error handling, but overall it gives enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing common field mappings for assets (e.g., asset_tag, name, serial) and clarifying the workflow, which helps interpret the field_map parameter beyond the schema's basic description.

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 it manages CSV import operations for bulk data import, listing six specific actions (list, get, upload, update, delete, process). This specific verb+resource combination, with the workflow and operation list, distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage individual asset types or other features.

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 a clear workflow (upload → update mappings → process) and common field mappings for assets, giving practical context for when and how to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the workflow and field mappings offer strong usage guidance.

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