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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the key behavioral detail: it overwrites the stored AI summary and next-step guidance. This clearly discloses what gets mutated without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single focused sentence that starts with the action and includes the key target. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the operation is destructive and involves multiple non-obvious parameters such as confirmation_token and idempotency_key. The description omits enough contextual information for an agent to call it correctly without guessing about parameter roles or side effects.

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% and the description provides no explanation for person_id, project_id, idempotency_key, or confirmation_token. For a tool with four parameters, including a confirmation token and idempotency key, the description must compensate but does not.

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 names a specific verb (regenerate and overwrite) and a distinct resource (stored AI summary and next-step guidance), which clearly distinguishes it from generic contact-update siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative or scope condition, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as crm.update_contact or crm.add_contact_note. The intent to refresh a summary is implied by the name but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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