link_existing_prospects_to_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it links existing prospects, skips do_not_contact or not-found prospects, and returns counts with per-prospect reasons in skippedDetails. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and expected behavior, though it omits permission requirements or potential irreversible changes.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes all essential behavior and return summary. There is no filler or redundancy; every clause adds value.

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 tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, one an array of objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior, return counts, and skipping logic. It notes skippedDetails for per-prospect reasons, which is helpful. It could mention error handling for invalid projectIds or further shape the skippedDetails structure, but the description is reasonably complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 50%, with descriptions for projectId and matchReason in the schema itself. The description adds meaning to prospectId by stating it must reference existing prospects and that certain ones are skipped, but it does not elaborate on the priority field or the structure of the links array beyond what the schema already covers. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action: linking existing tenant prospects to a project, and explicitly distinguishes from creating new prospects or organizations. It also mentions the skipping behavior and return counts, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like add_prospects.

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 clarifies that this tool does NOT create new prospects or organizations, which implicitly tells users to use this when they have existing prospect IDs. It also notes that do_not_contact or not-found prospects are skipped, providing context on when results may be partial. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with add_prospects or import_prospects_from_csv.

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