reading_import_begin

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the import is chunked, but it does not explain what calling this tool actually creates or changes, whether it returns an import ID, how overwrite behaves, or what state/context is required for subsequent calls.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core operation, and contains no filler. Both sentences earn their place: one states the action, the other gives the usage condition.

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 complexity of a chunked import workflow, 10 parameters, no output schema, and siblings like reading_import_part, reading_import_finish, and reading_import_cancel, this description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what happens after calling begin, what identifier is used to continue, or how the chunks connect to the final import.

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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for any of the 10 parameters. The required filename, optional title/author/bookId, maxChars, expectedBytes, headingRegex, and other parameters are all left unexplained, forcing the agent to guess.

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 names a specific operation ('Start a chunked EPUB/TXT import') and clearly identifies the resource and mode. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling reading_import_book by noting the 'too large for one request' condition.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when the file is too large for a single reading_import_book request. It names the alternative tool and gives a clear routing rule for an agent.

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