Import Connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers meaningfully: it discloses that re-running is safe, that contacts are matched on name plus company, and that rows are updated in place rather than duplicated. This is valuable mutation context. It does not cover error conditions or the full side-effect profile, but the idempotency and matching disclosures go well beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and the behaviorally important idempotency disclosure follows in sentence two. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with a full schema, an output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, scope, matching logic, and update-in-place behavior. The only gap is error behavior for malformed or missing CSVs, which is a minor omission for this tool class.

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%, so the baseline is 3 — the schema already fully documents csv_path as the path to the LinkedIn data-export CSV. The description adds marginal context by naming the exact file (Connections.csv) and the matching semantics, but does not substantially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 (import) and resource (the user's own LinkedIn connections export / Connections.csv), and scopes it to the user's own data. None of the 22 siblings perform an import, so differentiation is inherent and unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied — importing connections is a one-time setup operation that populates contact data used by siblings like find_warm_paths and find_alumni — but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or names an alternative. The idempotency note ('Re-running is safe') hints at repeat use but isn't explicit routing guidance.

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