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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description earns credit for clarifying what 'destructive' means here — an external write to third-party systems, and that a CRM destination 'updates the records it already has' (upsert rather than pure append). It does not disclose reversibility, partial-failure behavior, or auth/rate-limit constraints.

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 with the action and destination list front-loaded; nothing is padded or repeated from the title. The second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity, but no sentence is wasted.

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 destructive, open-world write with four undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and destination scope but leaves an agent guessing about parameter meaning and the outcome of the call. It is minimum viable rather than complete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it explains none of the four required parameters. It gestures at the concepts behind entity_ids ('selected results') and destination_sha256 ('saved field mapping') but never clarifies find_id, the 1–2000 item bounds on entity_ids, or the required hash format.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Writes the selected results to...') and enumerates concrete destination systems (Sheets, Excel, Airtable, Notion, HubSpot, Salesforce, Outlook drafts). This separates it from read/export siblings like export_find or list_destination_exports, though it does not explicitly contrast with create_destination_sync or save_connection_destination.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite several nearby siblings (export_find, create_destination_sync, reconcile_destination_export) that an agent could confuse with this one. The phrase 'with the saved field mapping' only implicitly signals the prerequisite that a destination must already be configured.

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