conduyt_ai_import_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the 1000-contact ceiling, dedup on email/phone/both, and side effects on other resources (tagging, smart list creation, automation enrollment). It leaves out whether the operation is synchronous or batch, what happens when skipDuplicates is false, partial-failure semantics, and required permissions — all material for a bulk write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the capacity limit, then the optional behaviors, then dedup. 'AI-powered' is the only filler; everything else maps to a callable capability.

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-parameter bulk mutation with zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, limit, and dedup strategy but is thin on outcome semantics — the agent cannot predict what a partially failed import returns or what happens to duplicates when skipping is disabled. Adequate to start a call, not enough to predict its effects.

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 nested options and contact fields are already documented in structured form, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds a little meaning by calling out auto-tagging, smart list creation, automation enrollment, and the dedup strategy in prose, but contributes no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what the schema states.

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 ('bulk contact import') plus a hard capacity limit, which separates it from conduyt_create_contact (single record) and conduyt_bulk_edit_contacts (mutation of existing records). It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer routing from the verb, but the intent is 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?

The description never says when to use this instead of conduyt_create_contact, conduyt_import_deals, or conduyt_bulk_edit_contacts, and it omits any prerequisite such as running conduyt_import_preflight first. The 1000-contact cap reads as a constraint, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no explicit when/when-not signal.

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