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

Adds real context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the exact API call (POST /users/upsert), the { data: {...} } body wrapping requirement, the no-duplicates matching semantics, and the return value. The one meaningful gap is what happens to existing fields on an email match — whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved — which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

One tight paragraph, front-loaded with the mutation warning, then API mechanics, then field guidance, then return value. Every clause carries information — no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Handles the nested `fields` object, the required match key, and the return value despite there being no output schema. Only the overwrite-on-match behavior and any auth/permission requirements are left unstated for a tool flagged destructive.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by designating email as the match key and by giving concrete example keys (phoneNumber, address, public, private) for the free-form `fields` bag that the schema leaves as unconstrained additionalProperties. That genuinely helps an agent populate the nested object.

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 ('creates OR updates a supporter/donor') and immediately pins down the match key (email), which is exactly what separates an upsert from a plain create. An agent can distinguish it from raisely_get_user or raisely_update_profile 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?

Gives clear usage context: use this rather than a plain create because matching by email avoids duplicates. It doesn't name a concrete sibling tool as the alternative (e.g. raisely_update_profile / raisely_get_user) nor state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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