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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission model (realtime staff check, self-only cancel), that preview does not read private contact info for either party, and an integrity constraint against fabricating a 'contacted' result, which is valuable. It says nothing about side effects, whether transitions are reversible, what preview returns, or why previewHash/consent exist, all of which matter for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficient: it front-loads the action semantics and then adds constraints, with no filler. The heavy use of semicolons and the lack of an opening purpose statement slightly hurt readability, but nothing is redundant.

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?

This is a complex 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description leaves out the preview/previewHash confirmation flow and most parameter meanings. It covers action and permission semantics plus one integrity warning but is not complete enough for an agent to call it reliably.

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 7 parameters, so the description should explain all of them. It explains the action enum (which the schema already enumerates) and gestures at preview, but consent, previewHash (a 64-hex value that is clearly part of a preview-then-confirm handshake), resolution, organizationId, and requestId get no meaning at all.

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 works as a glossary of the four enum actions (ACCEPT=接手, CONTACTING=正在联系, COMPLETE=已处理, CANCEL=取消), which implies a state-transition tool for a connection/contact-assistance request, but it never states the tool's purpose in a single clear 'verb + resource' sentence. It also does not differentiate the tool from nearby siblings such as respond_connection_request, respond_contact_exchange, or manage_ecosystem_service_requests.

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 are clear conditional rules: an individual may only CANCEL their own request, and staff permissions are decided by the backend at runtime. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over alternatives, or when to use preview versus a confirmed write, so the selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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