Preview company import

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive mutation. The term 'Preview' suggests a simulation, but the description does not explain what happens on execution, whether it creates a job, or what the output represents.

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 short (two sentences) but not optimally structured. The first sentence provides purpose, but the second mixes technical details (Paperclip operation) with auth class. It is concise but lacks front-loading of actionable information for an agent.

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 tool's complexity (previewing a company import) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the preview returns or how to interpret results. It does not, leaving the agent without context on the output or side effects. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 50% (body has a placeholder description but no schema; path companyId lacks description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema. With coverage at 50%, the description should compensate, but it only restates the operation path and auth class.

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 'Preview company import', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like pc_post_companies_by_company_id_imports_apply (apply import) and other import-related tools by clearly indicating this is a preview operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The auth class 'board_or_agent' is included but adds no usage context.

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