conduyt_ai_task_import_and_enroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that nothing is persisted, that the response enumerates counts, matches, and warnings, and that execution is gated to human sessions and unavailable to API-key callers. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot derive from the schema and needs before calling.

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 PREVIEW ONLY marker, then what it does, then what it returns, then the access restriction. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return payload as counts, matches, and warnings. Combined with the non-persistence and access-restriction disclosures, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and interpret the result.

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 100%, so every parameter (contacts, tagIds, automationId, smartListId) is already documented in the schema, including the 1-500 contact bound. The description restates the same concepts (tagging, enrollment, smart list) at a high level without adding syntax, format, or failure semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: preview a bulk import of contacts with optional tagging, automation enrollment, and smart-list addition. It is unambiguous about being a preview rather than a mutation, which implicitly separates it from conduyt_ai_import_contacts. It never names that or any other sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It clearly states the operating context: agent/API-key callers can only preview, and actual execution requires a human session in the app. That tells the caller exactly what this tool can and cannot accomplish for them. It does not point to alternative tools (e.g. conduyt_import_preflight or conduyt_ai_import_contacts) for related needs, leaving that inference to the agent.

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