reading_import_part

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the operation appends data and requires an active import, but it does not explain ordering, idempotency, effects of invalid uploadId, failure behavior, or what happens after the final part is appended.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and quickly understand the tool's role.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations, this one-liner is insufficient. It does not explain the chunk sequencing, required upload ID origin, the role of index, or what a successful append implies for the overall import workflow.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies that the part is base64-encoded, which helps for dataBase64, but uploadId is only vaguely implied by 'active chunked import', and index is not explained at all.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append'), a clear resource ('one base64 file part'), and a scoping context ('an active chunked import'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like reading_import_begin, reading_import_finish, and reading_import_cancel.

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 phrase 'to an active chunked import' gives clear contextual guidance that this tool must be called after a chunked import has been started and before finish/cancel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing is reasonably clear.

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