checkvist_import_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that tasks are imported in a particular format, but omits side effects, failure behavior, atomicity, permission requirements, or impact on existing tasks. For a mutating operation, this is minimal disclosure.

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?

A single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and format. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 tool is moderately complex (4 params, full schema coverage, no output schema). The description is adequate for understanding the basic import action, but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over checkvist_create_task, or consequences of import (e.g., duplicates, parent hierarchy). It does not fully cover the operational context.

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 the format context ('indented text') which clarifies import_content, but does not elaborate on parent_id or parse_tasks. Since the schema already documents these parameters, the description's contribution is marginal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') with a clear object ('multiple tasks') and format context ('Checkvist format (indented text)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like checkvist_create_task (single task) and checkvist_create_note, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'at once' clearly differentiates this bulk-import tool from per-task creation siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving slight ambiguity for agents comparing it to create_task.

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