import_source_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is asynchronous, returns task_id and knowledge_base_id, writes embeddings into the destination, and requires an owned destination. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema fields.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by essential async details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy 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 description covers the async workflow and destination ownership, but with eight parameters and no schema descriptions, it leaves important gaps (e.g., what source_schema expects, what table_names should contain, how profiling_enabled/auto_generate_dictionary affect behavior). An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter-level guidance is incomplete.

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. It only explains destination_id in detail ('get one from list_destinations', 'writes embeddings'). Other required parameters like source_schema and table_names are not described, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 action: 'Crawl a source's metadata into a new knowledge base.' It identifies the resource (source metadata), the target (new knowledge base), and distinguishes this from sibling tools by highlighting its asynchronous nature and return of task_id and knowledge_base_id.

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?

It provides concrete usage guidance: explains the asynchronous workflow, tells the agent to poll with get_ingestion_task, requires destination_id from list_destinations, and warns to choose a destination the agent owns. It does not explicitly name alternatives like import_and_wait, but the context is clear.

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