import_and_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses blocking behavior (waits for completion), timeout semantics (continues server-side after timeout_s), return values (knowledge_base_id and final status), and a side effect (writes embeddings into destination_id), plus a caution about ownership.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each of the three short paragraphs adds new information without redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's behavior, timeout, side effects, and ownership, and the output schema presumably documents return values. However, the lack of parameter semantics for key required fields leaves the description incomplete for confident tool 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?

Only timeout_s and destination_id are given explicit meaning in the description. Other required parameters such as name, source_schema, and table_names are not described, and with 0% schema description coverage the agent has insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 it imports a source's metadata into a knowledge base and waits for it to finish. It explicitly identifies itself as a convenience wrapper over import_source_metadata + get_ingestion_task, distinguishing it from those sibling 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?

The description explicitly names the underlying tools and explains this is a convenience wrapper, providing an alternative to using them separately. It also advises using a destination you own and mentions polling get_ingestion_task if the import continues after timeout, guiding when to use this tool vs the lower-level APIs.

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