import_transactions

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, yet the description states that mode="replace" "swaps out everything for this target" — an operation that deletes existing rows and is therefore not additive. That directly undercuts the safety signal an agent would rely on before calling the tool. The duplicate-skipping note does corroborate idempotentHint=true, but the replace-mode conflict is the more consequential disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and the two format-specific prerequisites, then a short safety note about re-importing, then a per-argument list. No sentence is filler; the argument list adds meaning rather than restating the schema titles.

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?

With six parameters and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to construct a call, including the otherwise-undocumented target enum and conditional format rules. Minor gaps: no statement of what happens if a CSV import arrives without a valid profile, and no pointer to preview_import as a dry run.

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 0% and the schema carries no enums, so the description must carry all parameter meaning — and it does. It enumerates the four legal `target` values, explains the file_path-vs-content tradeoff (local path versus text shared in conversation), gives mode's default and both semantics, and explains that batch_ref_pattern is a CAMT.053-only regex for extracting the payout id.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Import an export into the workspace") and immediately scopes it to two concrete input formats (CSV with a mapping profile, CAMT.053 without). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling `preview_import`, so an agent must infer which one to reach for first.

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?

Useful preconditions are stated (CSV requires a saved mapping profile, CAMT.053 does not) and the append/replace modes are explained, which implies when each mode is appropriate. However, there is no explicit routing versus the `preview_import` or `save_mapping_profile` siblings, and no guidance on when importing is the wrong action.

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