import_schedule_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions preserving mapping metadata 'where possible' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., modifications to the workspace, file handling, error behavior, or what happens if metadata cannot be preserved). It also does not indicate whether the operation is destructive or reversible.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action, input, target, and a notable caveat (preserving mapping metadata). There is no unnecessary detail or fluff.

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 input and intent but omits several important contextual details: expected return value (no output schema), error handling, behavior with invalid file paths or unsupported types, and the full implications of a 'dirty' workspace. It is not fully complete for an agent to confidently execute without additional assumptions.

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 description implicitly references both parameters: filePath (the XLSX file location) and scheduleType (group/private). However, it does not explicitly describe their semantics, valid values, or constraints beyond the enum in the schema. The meaning of 'dirty' workspace is unclear and not tied to parameters.

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's purpose: importing an existing XLSX schedule into a draft workspace. It specifies the input type (group/private XLSX) and the target (a dirty Schedule Workspace draft), and mentions the preservation of mapping metadata. This distinguishes it from other tools like import_poster or create_schedule_template.

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 implies usage context (importing an existing schedule file) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios, such as when the file is not XLSX or when the workspace is not dirty. The 'dirty' qualifier is ambiguous and not explained.

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