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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses dedup, suppression skipping, invalid counting, background ESP detection and verification, and — importantly — the two-step confirmation returning a preview and confirm_token. This tells the agent the exact state machine and side effects of 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?

Front-loads the core purpose then layers the protocol efficiently in five sentences. Dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; no significant padding.

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 destructive 10-parameter batch import with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle including the confirmation gate and background processing. Minor gaps remain around error recovery or how previews are structured, but it is complete enough to invoke 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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description meaningfully augments the coordination parameters: importId, final, and confirm_token are all given workflow semantics that the schema alone doesn't fully convey. It doesn't cover every parameter, but the critical ones are explained well beyond schema text.

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 (import) and resource (leads) along with the chunked batch protocol, which clearly separates it from siblings like add_leads_to_campaign. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Explains when the chunking protocol applies (first call creates the import, subsequent calls pass importId, last passes final: true) and the confirmation flow. It doesn't name an alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stays at 4.

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