request_bulk_import

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

Goes beyond annotations by flagging that writes require an environment flag, that the mutation is not live-validated, and that behavior has not been live-tested — material caveats an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint. It stops short of saying what happens on partial failure or whether the import can be undone, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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 verb and endpoint, then caveats, with no filler sentences. The one flaw is redundancy: 'Not live-validated' and 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' say the same thing twice in a five-clause description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the write-flag caveat is present. What is missing for a non-idempotent bulk mutation is basically what a bulk import of and how confirm_destructive interacts with the flagged destructiveHint=false.

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 0% for four parameters, and the description only covers payload (by referencing get_schema) and the absence of path parameters. query and especially confirm_destructive — the safety flag for a mutation whose destructiveHint is false — are left entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess.

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-plus-endpoint ('POST /v1/user/triggerBulkImport') and that it is mutating, so an agent knows exactly which operation it is. However, it never says what is being imported (flights? calendar records?) or how it differs from the sibling import_calendar, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 a hard prerequisite (FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true) and points to get_schema('TriggerBulkImportRequestProto') for payload shape, which is actionable. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over import_calendar or how to handle batching/retries, so usage context is only implied.

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