vk_put_migratio_99c1d32d8e3a

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, the return content (detected columns, delimiter, etc.), and behavioral conventions like parameter aliases and top-level path/query fields. This is more transparent than many raw proxies, though it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or error cases.

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, leading with a concise purpose statement followed by technical usage details. Some redundancy exists ('Detect CSV structure' and 'Analyzes a CSV file...' overlap), and the 'Form fields: import' line repeats schema info, but overall every sentence contributes useful context.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (auto-detected columns, delimiter, quote character, date format). It gives sufficient input context with the multipart form details and auth note. For a one-parameter tool with nested objects, this is nearly complete, though exact response structure or common error cases are not mentioned.

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 single 'form' parameter with 100% description coverage, including the required 'import' file and its object shape. The description adds little new parameter meaning beyond repeating the required field, though it does contextualize the general proxy parameter rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Detect CSV structure' and specifies the exact endpoint 'PUT /migration/csv/detect'. It clearly states the tool's function: analyzing a CSV file to return auto-detected columns, delimiter, quote character, and date format. This distinguishes it from sibling migration tools by naming the specific 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 implies when to use the tool (when CSV structure detection is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives among the many sibling tools. It provides invocation details (multipart form data, required import field) but lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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