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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: it records permission without sending a message. However, it does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to relationships not under the caller's control.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a clarifying constraint. Efficient and no waste, though it could be slightly more information-dense without losing conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage on four required parameters, the description is thin. It does not explain the fields, the consequences of setting consent, or the relationship key requirement, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 mentions only 'recontact and notification permission' in passing, without explaining the four required parameters (relationship_id, relationship_key, recontact, notifications). It does not clarify the difference between recontact and notifications, nor the role of relationship_id vs relationship_key. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 (Set) and resource (contact consent / recontact and notification permission). It clarifies the scope ('a relationship you control') and distinguishes the action from messaging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like aether_relationship_status, which likely reads related state.

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 usage by clarifying that it 'records permission but does not send a message,' which helps distinguish it from a messaging tool. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among siblings such as aether_relationship_status.

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