upload_csv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, if a table name must be unique, permission requirements, or file size limits. 'Upload' implies mutability but no details.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but omits critical details. It is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations. A slightly longer description with key behavioral notes would be more helpful.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about response format, file requirements, error handling, and constraints. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional context.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It does not explain any parameter, including required fields like db_id and table_name, or optional ones like schema_name and collection_id. The input is a nested object, adding complexity.

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 (upload), resource (CSV file), and outcome (create a new table in Metabase). It distinguishes from siblings like append_csv_to_table and replace_table_csv by specifying 'create a new table'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like append_csv_to_table or replace_table_csv. The description lacks when-not-to-use or context about prerequisites.

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