Save prospects

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world; the description adds genuinely new behavior: dedup keys (email, LinkedIn URL, Apollo id, name+domain), no credits/no network, and the non-obvious rule that suppressed people are still saved but flagged. This is exactly the kind of extra trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by progressively finer detail (inputs, use cases, sidEEffects, next steps). Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 nested, 4-param write tool with no output schema, it covers input shapes, side effects, suppression, and next steps well. It leaves the merge-strategy default and any return/summary unstated, a minor gap given the schema handles parameter typing.

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 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: the dedup identity keys and the two accepted people shapes, plus the patch custom_fields.first_line example. That exceeds the schema's bare type info, though it doesn't fully explain merge or default status behavior.

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 (save or update prospects) plus scope (in a local named list) and distinguishes the two accepted input shapes. An agent can tell this apart from read/enrich siblings like sdr_list_prospects or sdr_waterfall_enrich_person without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases (persist drafted copy via patch custom_fields.first_line, set status/notes/signals) and routes to next tools (sdr_list_prospects, sdr_export_csv). It does not name a when-not or an alternative write path, but the usage context is clear.

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