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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it writes only to the member's own contacts (consistent with openWorldHint=false), appends exactly one note dated now unless occurred_at is supplied, returns the recorded touch, and silently writes nothing but returns candidates on an ambiguous name. The destructiveHint=true flag is not echoed, but the appending-write semantics and blast radius are disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger scenario before mechanics, and every sentence carries information (trigger, parameter routing, write behavior, ambiguity semantics, scope). It is dense and slightly long, but nothing is filler or redundant with the schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully covers the return value ('returns the recorded touch') and the degenerate return (candidate list on ambiguous names), and with six parameters it explains how to supply the identifying ones. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds selection logic the schema doesn't: prefer `id` from connections_contacts_list, fall back to `name`, and use `email` only to disambiguate same-name contacts. It doesn't restate enum values or the 4000-char note limit.

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 ('Log a note or touch on one of the member's contacts') with concrete example utterances, and distinguishes itself from the read-side siblings (connections_contacts_get / connections_contacts_list) and from connections_note_save by naming the target record. An agent can select it without opening any 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?

Gives the exact trigger condition ('when the member says they talked to, met or called someone and wants it kept on that person's record') plus two paraphrased user utterances. It also states the resolution path when only a name is known and the required contacts:write scope, so usage is fully determined.

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