import_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the upload/creation behavior and the return value, which is reasonable. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the import job runs immediately or requires subsequent steps), file size limits, or error conditions for invalid file types or mismatched sources. For a stateful workflow tool, this leaves some uncertainty.

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—one focused sentence plus a returns clause. It front-loads the core action and formats, then lists allowed enum values inline. It's efficient, though the full enumeration of importType and source values duplicates what's already in the schema enums, making it slightly redundant even if convenient for the agent.

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 file-upload tool with no output schema and four well-documented parameters, the description provides the essential context: file formats, required param types, and the return value. The main gap is workflow context—how this tool connects to import_preview/import_mapping/import_execute in the import pipeline. Minor gaps include file size limits and behavior on invalid input, but overall adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters documented in the schema. The description mentions importType and source as required and lists their allowed values, reinforcing the schema without adding deeper meaning. It adds a bit of context about file formats (CSV/XLSX/XML). Since coverage is complete, baseline 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't meaningfully extend beyond the schema for parameter semantics.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Upload a file (CSV, XLSX, or XML) to start a new import job.' It clearly states what the tool does, what file formats are accepted, and what it returns ('Returns the created import job with preview data'). It distinguishes itself from sibling import tools like import_preview, import_execute, and import_mapping by focusing on the upload/start-new-job action.

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 states the purpose ('to start a new import job') and enumerates the valid importType and source values. It mentions the return value. However, it doesn't explicitly address when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to related import workflow steps (import_preview, import_mapping, import_execute), which would aid a multi-step import workflow.

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