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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond: merge semantics (later decision wins), refusal of accepted rows without accept/campaign, unresolved-URL handling and re-keying, LinkedIn lookups being read-only with one browser session per account. Rich disclosure of side effects and edge behavior.

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-loaded with the core purpose and organized logically (format, matching, merging, refusal, dry-run, idempotency). It is a dense single block, but nearly every sentence carries operative information; only the inline JSON shape is a slight reading cost.

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 steps in and describes the return shape (create/update/unchanged/refused/merges diff plus unresolved list) and the dry-run behavior. For a destructive, high-complexity migration tool, nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it documents the ledger's JSON shape keyed by profileUrl with fields account/decision/reason/icp/campaignId/date, and clarifies that confirmImport=false returns the full diff. This is value beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 (one-time migration of a triage ledger into the memory) and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming li_mark_invitations as the behavioral reference and contrasting with li_invitation_decisions. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs to run with confirmImport=false first and explains what that returns; also states that re-running is idempotent and describes the refusal rule. The when-to-use and the safe-operating procedure are both spelled out.

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