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

Annotations already declare it as a non-destructive, non-read-only, closed-world mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about insertion side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens when placement params conflict.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is thin but still orients the agent toward the required contactType decision, so little is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema compensates fully with rich per-parameter docs. Nothing critical is missing, but the description does not enrich the picture beyond purpose.

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%, so the schema itself already documents all 11 parameters, including the nuanced after/position/parentId placement rules and defaultValue vs defaultValueFieldRef exclusion. The description adds only the contactType choice hint, so 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 (insert) and resource (contact question) plus its scope (email, phone, or URL), which separates it from the many other editor_insert*Question siblings. It is clear what the tool creates, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead.

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 only guidance is 'Choose contactType based on what information you need,' which is really a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use statement. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over editor_insertTextQuestion or other question-type tools, and no prerequisites or ordering constraints are stated.

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