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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that writes land in a shared AIsa workspace, become visible and editable by others, and provide no per-caller isolation. This is valuable behavioral context that complements the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two compact sentences lead with the core action, then immediately add the critical shared-workspace side effect. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-parameter schema, the output schema, and annotations already covering destructive and non-idempotent behavior, the description is largely complete. It explains the bulk nature, owner ID source, and shared side effects; it does not mention optional prerequisites or limits, but those are not required for a correct call.

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?

The description adds real meaning to `owner_id` by specifying that owner IDs come from `get_apollo_users_search`, which is useful beyond the schema's generic 'New owner ID.' However, `contact_ids` receives only implicit context from 'several contacts at once,' so the low 50% schema description coverage is only partially compensated.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Reassign the owner of several contacts at once.' It clearly names the resource (contacts, not accounts or tasks) and identifies the batch action, making it easy to distinguish from similar contact update tools.

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 description implies bulk usage via 'several contacts at once' and points to `get_apollo_users_search` for owner IDs, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over a single-contact patch or another bulk update tool, and it offers no exclusions.

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