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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description adds a prerequisite credential source and a safety workflow (dry run, owner review) that goes beyond those hints. It stops short of disclosing what happens on duplicates, invalid rows, partial failures, or whether an import is reversible.

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?

Three sentences, with the credential prerequisite leading and the mandatory workflow last, so the two things an agent must know before calling are front- and back-loaded around the CSV format. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

Covers prerequisites, CSV shape, and the required invocation sequence for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. The remaining gap is that it tells the agent to 'show the owner the result' without characterizing the dry-run output or error reporting, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the required vs optional CSV columns inside csv_text, and the operational contract for dry_run (check first, then import). It does not explain default_plan, though the schema already documents it.

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 and resource ('Import agents from a roster CSV') plus the exact expected CSV columns, including which are optional. The bulk-CSV framing distinguishes it from the single-agent sibling add_agent without needing to name it.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Needs the workspace_key from create_workspace') and a mandatory two-step protocol: always dry_run=true first, show the owner the result, only then dry_run=false. That is a clear when/how-to-use procedure, not an implied one.

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