vk_put_migratio_97425315f880

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses authentication requirements, raw proxy behavior, multipart form encoding, file object format, alias conventions, and required fields. It does not cover side effects like whether the import replaces existing tasks or error behavior, but content is substantial.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary encoding details; every sentence adds technical value. There is slight redundancy in restating required fields, but overall it is tight and well-structured.

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?

For a file-upload import tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers transport format, required fields, authentication, and parameter aliases. It omits return format and specific config contents, but the description is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 schema already covers the form object and import/config fields; the description adds multi-file array handling, camelCase/snake_case alias support, and clarifies file object semantics. The generic claim about top-level path/query parameters slightly conflicts with the schema's additionalProperties:false, but the form-field guidance keeps it usable.

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?

Description opens with 'Import CSV file' and identifies the exact endpoint 'PUT /migration/csv/migrate', giving a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling migration tools and states the operation: imports tasks from a CSV file.

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 use case is implied: use it to import CSV tasks. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling migration endpoints, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It does state required fields and authentication, offering operational context.

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