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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/openWorld/not-idempotent, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: login is required, the default call is a non-committing preview, and the tool deliberately does not fetch contact details or send anything. The confirm-with-hash requirement is the key behavioral fact an agent must know before calling twice.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the login requirement and the usage precondition lead, followed by the non-actions and the preview/hash workflow. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: auth requirement, invocation precondition, preview/confirm protocol, and explicitly what it will not do. It stops short of explaining what a successful commit returns or how the hash is derived.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the non-obvious preview/previewHash pair ('default preview, execute with hash after confirmation') and implies result/userReportedContact via 'gives the result', but channel, done, note, conversationId and organizationId remain undocumented anywhere.

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 action (recording a manually completed contact) and its precondition, and negates three adjacent actions (dialing, SMS, sending) so the agent knows this is not an outreach tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-neighbour set_host_followup_done, which is the most likely confusion in this sibling set.

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?

It states an explicit precondition — record only when the user has clearly said contact was made and reported the result — plus the two-phase flow (preview first, then re-call with the same params plus hash after user confirmation). No alternative tool is named, so the when-not side is only implied by the negated actions.

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