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

Goes well beyond the annotations: secret auth values are stripped and surfaced in needs_auth, existing endpoint names are skipped making re-imports idempotent, and dry_run defaults to preview. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before committing a bulk write.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and source formats, then the workflow, then the safety/idempotency guarantees. Three dense sentences with no filler and no repetition of schema text.

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?

For a 4-parameter bulk import with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the return-relevant needs_auth list, idempotency, and the follow-up tool. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning for dry_run (preview vs. commit, default true) and agent_id (attaches each created endpoint). It is silent on select, but the schema already documents that parameter adequately.

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 (Import) plus resource (custom API endpoints) and scope (in bulk), and enumerates the three accepted source formats. An agent can immediately distinguish this from create_api_endpoint (single) and attach_api_endpoint (existing endpoint to agent).

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 two-step workflow (preview with dry_run=true, then import with dry_run=false) and routes auth completion to set_endpoint_auth or the portal. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over create_api_endpoint for individual endpoints, so the sibling routing is only partial.

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