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

Annotations are bare (all false hints), so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers richly: side effects (record + personal invite link created), deferred LinkedIn authorization, consequences until authorized (absent from list_profiles, cannot publish), and name-based dedup returning the existing record. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core action + UI reference, what the tool does NOT do, downstream consequences, and dedup behavior. The verb-resource is front-loaded in sentence one and there is zero 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 low-complexity tool (3 params, 1 required, no nested objects), the description covers the creation flow, the deferred-auth state, visibility consequences, and dedup thoroughly. The only notable gap: with no output schema present, the description never states what the tool returns (e.g., the created record and invite link).

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 covers all 3 parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new semantics for the required name parameter by documenting the dedup rule ('If someone with the same name already exists, the existing record is returned instead of creating a duplicate'), which is not in the schema.

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-resource pair ('Add a person to the workspace as a team influencer') and anchors the exact semantics to the UI '+ tile' on the influencers page. It is easily distinguished from the sibling add_influencer_to_team by clarifying this tool only creates the record and invite link, not a team placement or LinkedIn connection.

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 clear context ('exactly as the + tile on the influencers page does') and a strong when-not ('This does NOT connect their LinkedIn' — the person must open the link themselves). It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as add_influencer_to_team, so exclusion routing is implied rather than stated outright.

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