import_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that story-to-requirement links are not restored and specifies required row fields, but it does not say whether imports are additive or overwriting, how duplicates are handled, whether the operation is atomic, or what permissions are needed.

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 three front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It communicates the core action, format source, required row contents, and an important limitation efficiently.

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?

For a mutation import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input format and a key data-loss caveat but omits important behavioral details such as overwrite/duplicate behavior, error handling, and atomicity. It is adequate but incomplete for safe invocation.

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 must compensate. It meaningfully explains the csv parameter's row types, required fields, and delimiter; projectId is not described, though its purpose is self-evident from the name.

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 resources: importing requirements and user stories from CSV text, explicitly tied to the export_backlog format. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like export_backlog and the single-item add tools.

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?

It clearly states the intended input source and format, implying when to use it instead of adding items individually. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, such as using add_requirement/add_user_story for single items.

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