add_prospects

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

The description reveals key behaviors: server-side dedup is authoritative and it returns inserted, skipped, and skippedDetails. It also explains specific skip reasons (unknown_industry, unknown_strategy). However, it does not mention side effects like one-way ratchets for doNotContact or write-once fields, which are present in the schema but not highlighted.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, covering the core purpose, dedup behavior, return format, and common skip reasons in three sentences. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while providing essential information. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 complexity of the tool with many parameters and nuanced behaviors, the description covers the high-level operation, dedup, and typical failure modes. It does not repeat all schema details, which is appropriate, but it could mention additional core behaviors like write-once fields or ratchets to be fully complete. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

The description adds context on how industry and discoveryStrategy values affect processing (skip reasons), which supplements the schema. However, the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, and the description does not significantly deepen understanding beyond that. The added value is moderate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Batch-register prospects') and its resource (prospects). It distinguishes from update tools by mentioning server-side dedup and provides a clear return structure. However, it could be slightly more explicit about being an 'add' vs 'update' operation, though 'register' implies creation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_prospects_from_csv or update_prospect. It implies batch use and dedup authority, but lacks direct guidance on selection criteria. Without explicit usage conditions, the agent may struggle to choose between similar batch-import tools.

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