swapcard_import_event_people

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Create or update' but does not clarify upsert semantics, conflict handling, validation outcomes, rate limits, or idempotency. It mentions supported features but not the side effects or requirements (e.g., whether existing records are overwritten silently, how errors are reported). This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's operational behavior.

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 in length. However, it is vague and lacks structure; it doesn't front-load critical information like the primary action or key parameters. It lists features without explaining how they are used. While compact, it fails to be informative enough to earn a higher score.

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 of the nested 'data' array, the presence of 'force' and 'validateOnly' parameters, and the absence of annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of these parameters, the expected behavior on validation, or how to construct the data structure. The tool is not usable without external knowledge.

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%, so the description should explain parameters. It references high-level capabilities (groups, barcodes, speaker roles, exhibitor memberships, custom fields) but does not map them to specific parameters like 'data' or 'force'. The essentials (eventId, data, validateOnly) are undocumented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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's function: 'Create or update attendees/people in bulk.' It identifies the resource (attendees/people) and the operation (create/update in bulk), and it mentions additional capabilities (groups, barcodes, speaker roles) that help distinguish it from list/delete tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like swapcard_delete_event_people or swapcard_list_event_people, though the bulk import purpose is evident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context for when bulk import is appropriate, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like individual create/update or session import tools. The 'bulk' wording implies batch scenarios, but there's no explicit when-not or references to sibling tools.

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