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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond these flags by explicitly disclosing the side effect: 'shares contacts to corporate scope.' This tells the agent that the operation changes the visibility/ownership domain of the contacts, which is more informative than a bare destructive hint.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the side effect is written as a clear, separate line. Every word earns its place, and the structure helps an agent parse the functional intent and the consequence quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the target scope, and the side effect. Minor omissions: prerequisites (e.g., must the user own those contacts? are corporate members pre-defined?) and reversibility, but these are not critical for a simple mutation tool with an output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It loosely ties the only parameter (contact_ids) to 'selected personal contacts', implying the values are IDs of personal contacts to share. However, it does not specify the required format, that these IDs must belong to the current user, or what happens if an ID is invalid. The description adds partial meaning but not full parameter clarity.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Share selected personal contacts with corporate members'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like share-contact-groups (different resource: groups vs. contacts), create-contact, and delete-contact. The scope is explicitly stated as 'personal contacts' moving into the corporate context.

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 usage: use this when you want to move chosen personal contacts into the corporate scope. However, it never states when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as share-contact-groups or create-contact. No exclusion or comparison is given, so the guidance is only implicit.

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