import_opening_tsv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a write operation. It does not disclose permissions needed, idempotency/duplicate handling, batch size limits implied by 'bounded', or what happens to existing opening data on import.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the compression is partly responsible for the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for an unannotated mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage the description is thin. It never defines the batch bound, the source format, or the failure/conflict behavior an agent would need before invoking it.

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 for two undocumented parameters. It does add real meaning to both: the tsv parameter is a Lichess-format TSV batch and the source parameter is an explicit attribution field, but no column format, delimiter, or expected source values are given.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (import an opening TSV batch) plus the source format (Lichess-format), which helps separate it from siblings like import_opening_plan and import_opening_statistics. It stops short of explicitly stating what makes it different from those other import tools, so an agent must infer the distinction from the format word alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement about when another import tool is preferable, and no prerequisites. The word 'bounded' hints at a size constraint but the description never states what the bound is or how to comply with it, leaving the agent to guess.

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