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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call is asynchronous, returns requested_at immediately, runs in the background, and spends the organization's per-minute refresh budget. It also explains the outcome values and the required write access. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs for a non-read-only, open-world operation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then layers in scoping, async behavior, polling instructions, outcomes, and limitations. Every sentence carries operational value, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool is a non-idempotent, open-world async mutation with rich annotations and an output schema. The description completes the picture by explaining background execution, polling via get_contact, outcome interpretation, and budget/access constraints, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% description coverage, including contact_id format and number_alias lookup guidance. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Ask WhatsApp for this contact's current name.' It immediately scopes the operation by clarifying that only the name is refreshed, not the profile picture, and that message delivery is unaffected. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_contact and from broader profile operations.

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 explicitly says not to call it in a loop and to refresh 'the one contact whose name looks stale.' It also explains how to observe completion via get_contact and the refresh field. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and the write-access requirement further frames appropriate use.

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