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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Import' implying mutation, but doesn't describe side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error scenarios. The mention of 'expectedVersion' hints at concurrency control but isn't explained.

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?

The description is only two sentences, with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not. The term 'connected provider units' is unexplained. For a mutation tool with four parameters, more context about behavior and results is needed.

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 75%, with descriptions for workspaceId, outputFormat, and idempotencyKey. The description adds 'provider and expectedVersion' which likely belong to the nested 'input' object, but doesn't clarify their types or roles. This adds modest value beyond 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?

The description states the tool imports 'connected provider units' and mentions required inputs, giving a basic verb+resource. However, the description claims provider and expectedVersion are required, while the input schema lists workspaceId as the only required field, creating a discrepancy that undermines clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., connect_sulvo_backup_provider, create_sulvo_ad_unit). There is no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or typical workflows.

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