Validate import

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Dry-run' suggests no side effects, but the tool does not confirm if it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what 'compact validation feedback' entails. Behavioral traits like rate limits or data deletion are not disclosed.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or separate behavior/usage sections), which would improve scannability for a 6-parameter tool.

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 tool has 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description does not explain the return value format beyond 'compact validation feedback', nor does it clarify parameter roles or constraints. Incomplete for practical use.

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%, and the tool description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters (e.g., 'company', 'payload', 'profile'). The agent must guess parameter semantics from names alone.

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 tool performs a dry-run import and returns compact validation feedback. The verb 'validate' and resource 'import' are specific, and it distinguishes from 'validate_document' (a sibling) which likely validates documents, not imports.

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?

The description implies usage for pre-import validation via 'dry-run', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'flexi_prepare_write' or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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