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

Annotations already declare mutating-but-non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior, but the description adds non-obvious traits: github_username is not applied immediately but 'added on the next run_import', linkedin_list adds to the role's list 'without a GitHub account', and an existing handle makes the row 'a duplicate'. These deferred-effect and validation rules are exactly the behavioral context the annotations don't convey.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the key constraint and then branches. Every clause carries information, though the nested parentheticals make it dense and somewhat run-on to parse in one pass.

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-param mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behaviors: branch semantics, deferred application, and duplicate detection. Missing only an explanation of import_id and any note on the response/error outcome, which 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the hard part: it explains what each action enum value does (skip vs linkedin_list) and what github_username triggers downstream. import_id remains undocumented in both schema and description, keeping this below a 5.

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 establishes that this tool resolves/confirms the identity of an imported row, and it enumerates the three resolution branches (github_username, action=skip, action=linkedin_list). It distinguishes itself from run_import ('added on the next run_import') and from get_import ('row number, from get_import'). The wording 'Say who a row to check is' is slightly awkward but the resource and action are unmistakable.

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?

Strong contextual constraint: 'only once the user decided (never guess, never by name)' tells the agent exactly when to call and what not to do. The three alternative actions and their consequences are spelled out. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling (get_import vs run_import) to invoke before/after, leaving some sequencing to inference.

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