Add Lead to List

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds a useful scoping behavior ('only, no campaign assignment'), but it does not disclose whether the lead must already exist, how duplicates are handled, or other side effects. Adequate but with meaningful gaps.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the scope exclusion packed into a short parenthetical. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 output schema and fully documented parameters, the definition is usable, but it leaves out routing guidance vs. sibling add tools and any preconditions (e.g., lead existence). For a mutation tool with sparse annotations, a bit more context would be warranted.

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%, with list_id, linkedin_url, and data each described in the schema. Per the baseline rule, the description need not repeat parameter info, and it does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. This is a correct baseline-3 case.

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: adding a lead to a contact list. The parenthetical '(no campaign assignment)' explicitly differentiates it from siblings like add_existing_lead_to_campaign and add_lead, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

The description clearly scopes the operation to list membership only and explicitly excludes campaign assignment, giving agents a when-not condition. However, it stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g., add_existing_lead_to_campaign) or stating a positive selection condition, so guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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