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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the login requirement, role-based status constraints, immutability of ended requests, the preview→confirm→previewHash flow, and the irreversible consequence that the same conversation cannot reapply. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Front-loads the login requirement and packs auth, role, state, and confirmation flow efficiently with no filler. The arrow/semicolon compression is dense but every clause earns its place.

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?

Covers auth, role constraints, state immutability, the two-step preview confirmation, and irreversibility for a 5-param mutation with no output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains requestId, the role meaning behind the status enum, and the preview/previewHash confirmation protocol. conversationId is only implicitly referenced via '同会话' and not defined, which prevents a 5.

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+resource: cancel or decline a contact-assist request ('取消或谢绝协助联系申请'). This clearly distinguishes it from create_quick_contact_request and get_quick_contact_context by operation type, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Gives strong when/when-not guidance: initiator may only use CANCELLED, recipient only DECLINED, and already-ended requests cannot be modified. No explicit named alternative tool is offered, which keeps it from a 5, but the conditional context is clear.

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