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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: values are replaced wholesale and no-longer-stored values are dropped, nothing is fetched from outside Koongo, the response shape is {status, type}, 'skipped' means store data not connected, and the operation is async with a named polling procedure. This is close to exhaustive for a mutation tool, though it does not mention permissions or how to size the poll interval/timeout.

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 action and scope, then layers usage, side effects, return value, async protocol and error handling in a logical order. Dense but nearly every clause is functional; the sentence count is high, though no single 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and status semantics, the async polling routine referencing get_import_status, the error path for 403, and the destructive side effect for existing values. An agent can call and follow up correctly with no other source.

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?

One optional parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description only notes 'project_id OPTIONAL', which the schema already conveys via required=[] and adds no meaning about scope or default behavior. Adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Apply stored API-source values onto products (they land as api_source.<code>)'. This is clearly distinguishable from set_api_source (writes the stored values) and delete_api_source, both named in the description.

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 explicit triggers — after the last set_api_source batch, after delete_api_source, or to retry a failed import — plus an explicit when-not: do not retry on 'addon_required' (HTTP 403). An agent knows exactly when to select this over its siblings.

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