Import keywords file

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: allowed file locations, Astro database reading behavior, preview-only reporting, and that imports run as a background job. It does not explain how to track or retrieve the background job result, which is a notable remaining gap.

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 front-loaded and every sentence carries useful operational information. It could be easier to scan with structured formatting, but it avoids filler.

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 the import modes and key parameters well, but it does not return an output schema and only says 'Background job.' An agent still lacks guidance on what the import returns and how to wait for or inspect the job, which matters for a non-idempotent, open-world import operation.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for path omission with format astro, Astro import effects, previewOnly, and projectId/folderId behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: importing an Astro export or CSV of apps/keywords from a local path. It also distinguishes the Astro-database mode from ordinary file import and clarifies how imported data can become projects or join an existing project.

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?

It gives clear conditional usage: path is required except with format astro, previewOnly only reports, and projectId vs folderId determines whether phrases join a project or apps become projects. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like add_keywords or export_data, but the import-specific context is strong.

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