validate_import_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the validation checks but does not detail return format, error handling, or auth requirements. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 paragraphs with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (6 params, 2 required) and low schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks explicit mention of the output structure or validation result format, despite the presence of an output schema. It covers key checks but could be more thorough.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate. It explains that headers are for field mapping and sample_rows for data type validation, adding meaning beyond schema. However, data_center, auth_user_id, and auth_password remain unexplained.

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 tool validates import template headers and sample data against SF metadata. It specifies the checks performed (field correspondence, missing fields, data types), and distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_migration_file by focusing on import templates.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before executing an import to catch errors early,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent.

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