import_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains domain-specific side effects, such as platform statements becoming one sales invoice plus a commission purchase invoice, and states that the tool returns the created job with preview data. It doesn't mention asynchronous processing or error behavior, but it covers the most important behavioral aspects.

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 efficient: three sentences that front-load the core action, then layer in required enums Interest and special-case mappings. The long enum lists are necessary for clarity, and every sentence contributes new information. It's appropriately sized, though slightly long due to the enumeration.

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 file formats, required parameters, special combination rules, and the return value (job with preview data). Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, this is reasonably complete. Missing details include async behavior and explicit error conditions, which would take it from strong to exhaustive.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining how source and importType interact — e.g., platform_sales for uber/bolt/glovo/tazz and receipts for cash_register — which is not inferable from schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Upload a file ... to start a new import job' — and immediately differentiates from sibling import tools like import_preview or import_execute. It also lists accepted file formats and the two required parameters, so there is no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 provides concrete routing rules for platform statements, shop exports, and fiscal cash register files, telling the agent exactly which importType/source combinations to use in those cases. It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use this tool, but the guidance is strong and practical.

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