check_bulk_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is free ('免费'), does not persist data ('不落库'), and can be run repeatedly ('可反复跑'). It also describes concrete behaviors: it uses the exact import schema, turns silent import behaviors into warnings, and enumerates what each error/warning category means, including side effects like mode=replace replacing all storyboards.

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: a bolded summary sentence, a return-value overview, then clearly labeled error and warning sections using stars and line breaks. Every sentence carries substantive information, and the pacing is appropriate for a tool with many validation rules. It is lengthy but not padded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the top-level return categories (errors/warnings/stats) and lists the stats fields. It also details the specific error and warning conditions, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results. It could specify the exact output JSON structure, but the description is already highly informative for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already covers the single payload parameter completely (100% coverage) with its anyOf type and description. The tool description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it is a pre-import JSON self-check that validates with the same zod schema as the import endpoint and surfaces silent behaviors as warnings. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the go/no-go gate before bulk_import_storyboards, while tools like get_bulk_import_spec and check_storyboard_table serve different purposes.

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 clearly tells the agent when to use this tool: before running bulk_import_storyboards, to validate JSON and reveal issues that would cause import to fail or behave unexpectedly. It ends with an explicit conditional ('if this is green, bulk_import_storyboards can pass in one go'). It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools for other cases, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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