import_puzzles

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. It does disclose that each batch validates the setup move and the completeness of the source line, which is useful, but it omits what happens on validation failure, whether imports are all-or-nothing, size limits implied by 'bounded', and the fact that this is a write operation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, and no padding. It is appropriately sized even if under-specified.

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 needn't be explained, but for a mutation/import tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves too much unstated: format expectations, failure behavior, batch limits, and how it relates to the other import_* siblings.

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 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema. The description implies csv_text holds CSV content and references a 'source line', giving marginal meaning, but it never defines the expected CSV columns or what values 'source' accepts, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb (import) and resource (puzzle CSV batch), and the name itself separates it from siblings like import_opening_tsv or import_study. However, the description never explicitly contrasts with those alternative importers, so differentiation relies on the tool name and domain nouns rather than stated guidance.

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 word 'bounded' hints that batch size is limited, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative import tools (import_opening_tsv, import_opening_plan, import_study) an agent could pick instead. An agent is left to infer routing entirely from the name.

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