run_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a write/destructive operation and explains the mapping parameter behavior, but does not disclose side effects like overwrite behavior, rate limits, or idempotency. The prerequisites and follow-up steps help, but deeper behavioral traits are missing.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes prerequisites and post-steps without extraneous detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers return value handling (get_action_status and download_importdump). It addresses prerequisites and mapping parameters. For a 6-parameter import tool, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation, though it could mention error conditions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining mappingParameters usage ('target a specific dimension') and provides context for other parameters (e.g., 'from show_imports'), exceeding what the schema alone offers.

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 action: 'Upload CSV/JSON data to a file, then execute an import action.' It distinguishes from siblings like run_export and run_process by specifying import-specific behavior and mapping parameters.

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 explicit prerequisites (show_imports for importId, show_files for fileId) and post-steps (check results with get_action_status, download_importdump for failures), guiding the agent on when and how to use the tool and what to do after.

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