import_correspondents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states whether this creates or merges contacts, how duplicates are handled, what permissions or account state are required, or that it mutates local contact data.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and the optional variant. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and three fully undocumented parameters the description is far too thin to let an agent call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only maps loosely to include_recipients ('optionally recipients'); the 'limit' and 'folder' parameters, including their defaults, are never explained in prose.

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 gives a specific verb (import) and resource (sender/recipient addresses into local contacts), so an agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like upsert_contact or list_contacts, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The word 'recent' implies a source of correspondence, but the agent is left to infer when this is preferable to upsert_contact or list_contacts.

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