novacrm_import_clients

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It does add one real behavioral fact — the 500-records-per-call ceiling — but says nothing about duplicate/conflict handling, atomicity or partial failures, required permissions, or whether existing clients are updated or rejected, all critical for a bulk write.

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, the batch limit, and the intended scenario. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state what happens on invalid rows or duplicates and what the call returns (count imported, per-item errors). None of that is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict failure behavior.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already notes records use "mesmos campos do create_client". The description adds only the 500-item cap, which is a volume constraint rather than per-field meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Importa clientes") plus a batch cap of 500 per call, which separates it from the single-record novacrm_create_client. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied through "em lote" rather than stated.

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?

"ideal para migração de dados de outro sistema" gives a scenario for use, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to novacrm_create_client for one-off records. The agent must infer the routing from the word "lote".

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