import_datasource

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation, and the description adds practical context: write permission is required and the data is sent via multipart upload. It does not detail overwrite or conflict side effects, but the handle_conflict and fields_to_preserve schema parameters cover that behavior, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core action and format constraint, then provide the necessary routing to the alternative tool. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 provides all agent-relevant context: format expectation, transport, permission requirement, and sibling tool routing. With 100% schema coverage handling parameter details, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, with the definition object, handle_conflict, and fields_to_preserve all already described in the schema. The description's format warning largely restates the definition schema's 'LM Exchange format' wording, so it adds little new parameter-level meaning.

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 (Import), the target resource (DataSource), the expected source format (LM Exchange JSON), and the transport method (multipart upload). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from create_datasource for REST API definitions, making it unambiguous among the many import/create siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool for LM Exchange format, not REST API format. It also names the alternative tool, create_datasource, for REST API definitions such as those from export_datasource, providing clear selection criteria.

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