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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context about what happens on repeated links (idempotentHint is false), whether an existing role is replaced, or whether it fails when the contact/org is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an example that earns its place by grounding the verb. Nothing wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the six parameters behind it.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is far too thin: agents must infer the semantics of three optional fields and whether the operation is additive or upserting.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only alludes to the role field. It says nothing about isPrimary, startedAt, or endedAt — the optional half of the parameter set carries no meaning beyond the schema types.

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 — attach a contact to an organization — plus a clarifying example (Dr. X works at practice Y). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like vitalli_create_contact or vitalli_get_organization, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 implies when the tool applies via the example, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must the contact and org already exist?), and no mention of alternatives or how this differs from updating a contact.

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