import_sheet_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains non-obvious side effects: sheet headers become contact properties usable as merge tags, and rows land in a fresh segment. It omits details like async behavior or error conditions, but the core behavioral contract is clearly stated.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The endpoint, input source, and key side effects are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no nested objects and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, input format, and side effects well. It lacks explicit return-value or error behavior, and there is no output schema, so it falls just short of fully complete.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds outcome-level context but no new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: import contacts from a link-shared Google Sheet. It also describes the key outcomes (headers become merge tags, rows land in a fresh segment), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like import_contacts_csv and import_contacts_batch.

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 source constraint 'link-shared Google Sheet' gives clear context for when this tool should be selected over CSV or batch import siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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