prepare_import

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 nothing is written, explains the duplicate-checking behavior, the need for resolution tickets for existing record endpoints, and the row limit with error feedback. This is thorough for a prepare-type tool.

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 dense but well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded and a line break separating the high-level description from parameter details. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff, though it is slightly longer than necessary.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral outcomes (returns per-row status, needs_decision, preview, action_id) and explains the two-call workflow. It omits explanation of decision_reason and partially covers review_ids/clarification, but overall an agent has enough to invoke the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does explain rows and links structures well, and touches on review_ids and clarification in context. However, it does not explain collection_id or decision_reason, which are required, and the description of review_ids is partial. It adds value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Prepare creating') and resource ('up to 100 records in ONE existing collection'), plus the key differentiator of needing only two calls instead of three. It also contrasts with resolve_record by stating no per-title resolution is needed, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from 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?

It clearly implies use for batch imports by highlighting the two-call advantage over per-record resolution and explicitly references the similarity rules of resolve_record. It also notes a constraint (very large collections limit rows per call) but does not explicitly name when to avoid it or point to alternative preparation tools like prepare_write or prepare_batch_write.

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