origin_import_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action and destination. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating new workbook), required permissions, size limits, or behavior for edge cases like empty files or unsupported formats. The lack of detail leaves many behavioral aspects unclear.

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 that is front-loaded with key information, making it brief. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or separation of usage and behavior. It could be improved with a slightly more detailed but still concise explanation of parameters.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema shown, the description is far from complete. It does not cover common use cases, error handling, or parameter-related guidance. For an import tool, details about encoding, header rows, and data type handling are essential but missing.

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%, meaning the description provides no information about any of the 10 parameters. While parameter names give some hints, they do not explain formatting, usage, or interactions (e.g., how delimiter interacts with TXT files, what encoding options exist). The description fails entirely to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'import' and the resource 'CSV, TSV, TXT, DAT, XLS, or XLSX file' into a 'new Origin worksheet'. It distinguishes from siblings like origin_read_worksheet which reads existing worksheets, and origin_write_worksheet which writes to existing worksheets.

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 use when importing a file into a new worksheet, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. It mentions 'new' worksheet, which suggests a constraint, but no further guidance on prerequisites or conflicts with other import-like tools.

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