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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a side-effect statement: 'Side effects: shares contact groups to corporate scope.' This clarifies the nature of the mutation, which is valuable beyond the generic annotation. However, it does not specify whether the original personal groups are altered, removed, or remain, nor does it disclose any permission or reversibility requirements. It adds some context but is not thorough.

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?

The description is compact—two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the side-effect note is appended without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a single-purpose tool.

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 destructive, non-idempotent operation, the description omits crucial context: what happens to the original personal groups, whether sharing is reversible, and any required permissions or preconditions. The presence of an output schema partially addresses return value documentation, but the tool's side effects and postconditions are not sufficiently specified. An agent cannot fully anticipate the consequences of invocation.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, group_ids (array of strings), with zero schema description coverage. The description hints that group_ids refer to 'selected personal contact groups (tags)', giving some semantic meaning, but it does not specify the expected format, whether they are IDs or names, or how they relate to the corporate scope. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action: 'Share selected personal contact groups (tags) with corporate members in your organization.' It clearly identifies the verb (share), the resource (personal contact groups/tags), and the target (corporate members). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'share-contacts' which targets contacts rather than groups, and from 'set-contact-groups' which likely manages assignment rather than sharing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like 'share-contacts' or 'set-contact-groups'. There is no explicit or implied condition that would help an agent choose this tool over others.

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