import_upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known at baseline. The description adds real value by noting 'start a new import job' and 'Returns the created import job with preview data', implying data is staged rather than applied. However it does not say whether re-uploading the same file creates a duplicate job, or what privileges/company scoping are needed.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and accepted formats, then the domain rules. The exhaustive enum recitations in parentheses duplicate schema data and pad the text, but every clause carries mapping guidance that is not otherwise available.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers inputs, accepted file types and the return value. It omits the natural follow-on steps (mapping/preview/execute) and file size or validation constraints, which an agent orchestrating an import would want.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by mapping domain sources to the correct importType, which the flat enums cannot convey. The long enumerated lists largely restate the schema enums, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload a file ... to start a new import job') plus the accepted formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It doesn't name sibling tools (import_preview, import_mapping, import_execute), so the boundary with them is only implied by 'start a new import job'.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions for parameter combinations: platform statements (uber, bolt, glovo, tazz) require importType platform_sales; shop exports require invoices_issued; A4200 XML or a cash-register ZIP requires source cash_register with importType receipts. No explicit exclusions against alternative import tools, and no statement that this only creates a job while import_execute applies it.

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