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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds concrete side effects: writes land in a shared AIsa workspace with no per-caller isolation, and reassignment is visible to previous owners. This enriches the agent's understanding of consequences without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences with the core action first, followed by necessary context. It is concise and well-structured, though the second sentence about workspace sharing is a bit dense. Overall efficient with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (bulk mutation, shared workspace, visibility changes), the description covers the essential points: what it does, where owner IDs come from, and side effects. It does not mention where account_ids come from or any failure modes, but the output schema exists and annotations cover safety. It is reasonably complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 50% (minimal descriptions: 'New owner ID' and 'Account IDs'). The description compensates partially by telling where owner IDs come from, but gives no additional context for account_ids, such as how to obtain them or any constraints. It adds some value but does not fully bridge the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Reassign the owner of several accounts at once') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling post_apollo_contacts_update_owners by explicitly mentioning 'accounts', so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

It provides a clear source for the owner_id parameter ('Owner ids come from get_apollo_users_search'), which is actionable guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the contact-owner update sibling, nor does it give any 'when not to use' guidance. The context is useful but not exhaustive.

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