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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the side effect that a status-change entry is auto-logged into interaction history. It stops short of saying whether non-adjacent or reverse transitions are permitted, which matters for a lifecycle-mutating tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the value semantics, then how to get the ID. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description covers the action, its side effect, enum semantics, and the prerequisite lookup. The only gap is whether invalid transition ordering is enforced or rejected by the server.

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 both parameters are already documented; the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the ordering semantics of the status enum values and when 'cold' applies, information the enum list alone does not convey.

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 ('Updates a contact's outreach status in GigHQ') and names the exact field being changed, which separates it from read-only siblings like get_contact or search_contacts. An agent can tell immediately this is a mutation of outreach state.

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 the status lifecycle order (not_contacted → reached_out → responded → in_conversation → connected), a specific rule for the otherwise-unexplained 'cold' value ('when the thread has gone quiet'), and points to search_contacts as the way to obtain the required contact_id. Nothing is left to inference.

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