import_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meaningfully discloses that the import runs asynchronously via a message queue and directs the user to check status with import_get. This is important because the result is not immediate and the agent wouldn't know to poll otherwise. It doesn't detail what success/failure looks like but covers the key async caveat.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action and precondition, with the asynchronous behavior and status check as a follow-up. Highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the essential async behavior and how to check progress, which are the two most important operational facts. No output schema exists so the description isn't expected to describe return format. The main gap is not stating any caveat about the async operation possibly timing out or failing, but for a sequencing-oriented tool it's fairly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the async execution context but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics like what importOptions entries mean or the relationship between companyId and the active company. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 clearly states the action ('execute an import job after mapping is confirmed'), identifies the specific resource (import job), and notes it runs asynchronously. This distinguishes it from import_preview, import_mapping, and import_upload among the import-related siblings.

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 precondition is explicit ('after mapping is confirmed'), which indicates this tool is the final step following import_mapping/import_preview. It points to import_get for status checking. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly but gives clear sequencing context.

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