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

Annotations show destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling mutation, but the description adds a concrete side-effect note: 'shares contact groups to corporate scope.' This gives some context beyond the annotations, though it does not explain the full consequences such as permantence, reversibility, or impact on existing corporate groups.

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 two crisp sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the side-effect note earns its place by disclosing the scope change.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema, the tool is simple, but the description still lacks direct parameter guidance and alternative differentiation. It is minimally viable but leaves an agent to infer important invocation details.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the group_ids parameter. The phrase 'selected personal contact groups (tags)' hints that group_ids refers to tag IDs, but this is indirect and insufficient for an agent to confidently construct correct input without further inference.

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 clear verb ('Share'), a specific resource ('selected personal contact groups'), and the target audience ('corporate members in your organization'). The parenthetical '(tags)' clarifies the meaning of contact groups, and the resource differs from sibling tools like share-contacts, making it distinguishable.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you want to share selected personal contact groups with corporate members. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer the appropriate context rather than being told.

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