import_csv

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about mutation semantics: partial-failure behavior on bad rows, atomicity, row limits, whether existing tasks are touched, or required permissions. It only specifies the CSV input format.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the input format spec. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema should cover return/behavior expectations, but the description stops at input format. It is sufficient to invoke correctly but incomplete on what an agent should expect from a bulk import.

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?

All three schema parameters are already documented at 100% coverage, and the description adds genuine meaning beyond that by defining the CSV body's internal columns (required name; optional description, color, swimlaneId, position), which the schema does not enumerate.

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+resource+mechanism: "Bulk-create tasks on a board from CSV content." The "bulk"/"CSV" framing implicitly separates it from the sibling create_task, but no sibling is named outright, so it lands at a clear-but-not-explicitly-differentiated 4.

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?

Usage is implied by "Bulk-create ... from CSV" (use this instead of repeated create_task calls when you have CSV), but the description never states when to choose this tool or any exclusions/preconditions beyond what's forced by the schema.

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