apply_csv

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

With no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral modes (dry_run vs commit) and mentions return format (per-transaction results plus tally). However, it does not disclose potential destructive actions from commiting, error handling, or prerequisites.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds necessary information about columns, behavior, and output. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

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 and low schema coverage, the description explains the tool's core functionality and return format adequately. However, it lacks details on error handling, CSV validation, or impact on existing data, which would be helpful for a batch update tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains the dry_run parameter's default and effect (resolves refs/plans vs commits), but does not describe the csv_path parameter format or constraints beyond listing column names. Partial value added.

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 applies a CSV of changes in batch, specifying the column structure. It references 'qbo-apply' which helps contextualize, though it's not a direct sibling. The verb 'Apply' and resource 'CSV of changes' is specific.

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 mentions 'Mirrors qbo-apply' but does not explain when to use this tool versus the listed siblings like update_transaction or query. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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