import_review_csv

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of 'import decisions' confirms a write operation. It adds that only specific fields are read, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or idempotency. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not enriched beyond 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 concise with three front-loaded sentences. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, input fields, and a condition, but omits crucial details like whether the import overwrites or appends, error scenarios, and return value. Given the tool's simplicity, the gaps are notable but not severe.

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 input schema has one parameter 'path' with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not directly explain the path parameter; it only implies it via the CSV file context. This is minimal added meaning for a critical parameter.

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 imports decisions from a CSV produced by export_review_csv, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself naturally from the sibling export_review_csv.

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 clear context by referencing export_review_csv as the source and detailing which fields are read. It also gives a conditional rule for the account field. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_decisions or execute_decisions.

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