bale_import_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'import'. It does not disclose whether existing contacts are overwritten or merged, how duplicates are handled, whether the call is idempotent, what permissions/auth it needs, or whether the import is all-or-nothing on partial failure.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Placeholder for contextual_completeness.

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% and the single parameter is a free-form array of objects with no defined item properties, so the description is the only source of meaning. It usefully names the data required (phone number and name) but gives no key names, formats, or per-contact structure, so the agent still cannot construct a valid item reliably.

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+resource: importing contacts into the Bale address book. It implicitly contrasts with bale_get_contacts, but never names a sibling explicitly to differentiate read vs. write paths.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g., whether an authenticated session is required first), and no mention of alternatives such as adding a contact via another flow. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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