sync_customers_from_inbox

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool scans all inbox conversations, creates new records, auto-tags by platform, and does not duplicate existing customers. However, it does not mention if the operation is destructive or if it requires permissions, which would further clarify behavior.

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?

Description is four sentences with clear structure: purpose, process, auto-tagging, deduplication. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 sync tool with output schema, description covers main aspects: scanning scope, record creation, deduplication, platform tagging. Missing details on idempotency or limits, but overall sufficient for the use case.

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?

Input schema has one optional parameter (org_id) with full description coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter information, but the schema already explains its meaning and fallback. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 imports customers from social media inbox conversations, creating CRM records. It is specific with verb 'import' and resource 'customers from inbox', and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_customers (viewing) and get_customer (single record).

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 implies usage for importing new customers from inbox conversations, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_customers for viewing existing ones. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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