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

The 'WRITE:' prefix and the POST endpoint meaningfully disclose that this is a mutation, adding context beyond the lone destructiveHint=false annotation. It does not say what happens if the contact already exists, whether auth/permissions beyond the connection are required, or how failures surface — gaps the sparse annotations leave open.

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 sentences with the mutation signal front-loaded and the endpoint appended efficiently. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the parenthetical about statements could be tightened.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the definition omits the purpose of three optional fields and any note on duplicate-email behavior or response shape. An agent can call it, but cannot confidently fill or interpret all the inputs.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it names 'name and email' (mapping roughly to first_name/last_name/email) and explains the email's purpose. It says nothing about phone, mobile, or the hash_key scoping parameter, leaving half the inputs 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?

States a specific verb and resource: add a contact to a connection, plus the underlying endpoint POST /network/{hash_key}/contacts. It is distinguishable from hiveage_update_contact and hiveage_get_contact by the 'add' verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'used when sending statements' gives a hint about why a contact exists, implying use when you need an email recipient for statements. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer-update_contact guidance, and no stated prerequisites such as needing an existing connection.

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