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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known; the description adds genuinely new traits: that in an active campaign the new step applies to the following sends, and that a 'verified' flag confirms position. The undocumented validate_only parameter is a small gap.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: action first, then type/position semantics, then side effects. The trailing 'Rückgabe: ...' sentence is largely redundant because an output schema exists, which costs it a point but the text remains short and free of filler.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers what the schema cannot: allowed type values, position semantics, workspace scoping and the downstream effect on running campaigns. Missing detail on delay units and validate_only keeps it from being fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the burden, and it does well: it enumerates the valid type values (email, linkedinInvite, linkedinSend, linkedinVisit, manual, phone), explains position (1 = first, omitted = append) and workspace. It leaves delay, title, message, subject and validate_only uninterpreted.

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?

"Schritt zur Hauptsequenz einer lemlist-Kampagne hinzufügen" states a specific verb (add) and resource (sequence step of a campaign). It is clearly narrower than lemlist_create_campaign, which it references for step fields, but it never contrasts itself with the closely-named sibling lemlist_update_sequence_step.

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?

It gives useful call-time context (position semantics, default append behavior, effect on running campaigns) but no when-to-use rule relative to the obvious alternative: modifying an existing step should go to lemlist_update_sequence_step, and the description never says so. The agent must infer add-vs-update from the verb alone.

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