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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the workspace-wide blast radius ('for the whole team') and the admin authorization requirement, which are real value. However, 'Only the parts you pass change' sits in tension with the schema's note that an omitted section is hidden, so the destructive potential of omission is under-disclosed rather than explained.

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 short sentences with no filler: the affected surface is front-loaded, then the patch semantics and the authorization gate. 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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, partial-update behavior, and the admin gate, so an agent has what it needs to invoke safely. The remaining gap is that omitting a section hides it ('whole team' also isn't pinned down as workspace-wide), which the description implies is benign.

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% and each of the five parameters (limit, badges, pinned, sections, hideEmpty) already carries a richer description than the prose. The description's enumeration maps cleanly onto those parameters and confirms the patch semantics, but adds no format, ordering, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Change the contact panel') and scopes it explicitly ('for the whole team'), then enumerates the exact facets it governs: section order/visibility, pinned fields, count shown, header badges, hide-empty. An agent can distinguish this from per-contact siblings like update_contact and from the reader get_contact_panel without opening the schema.

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?

'Only the parts you pass change' tells the agent the patch semantics, and 'Admins only' is an explicit prerequisite that gates invocation. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative (e.g. get_contact_panel for reading the current config), so it lands just short of a 5.

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