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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so 'Safe to retry; nothing is added twice' largely restates structured data. The description's added value is the privacy guarantee ('privately') and the persistent Google Maps connection that keeps syncing later saves — real behavior the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences, destination semantics front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information (destination choice, idempotency, connection persistence). No 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the pipeline context, destination rules, privacy scope, and long-lived connection behavior an agent needs. Nothing essential 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 75%, and the description clarifies the three destination paths for `list` (the start_import list, another own list, or a new private list) and that a new list is private by default. This meaningfully reinforces the schema's `list`, `new_list_title`, and `connect` hints, though `import_id` itself is left implicit.

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?

Specific verb (add) + resource (the kept entries of an import) + destination, with 'privately' as a scope qualifier. It is clearly the commit step of an import workflow, though it never names the adjacent siblings (sort_import, review_import, confirm_items) it must be distinguished from.

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?

The reference to 'the list given at start_import' places the tool in the import pipeline and implies it follows start_import and the review step. It also states retry-safe behavior, which tells the agent it may call it repeatedly. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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