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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the permission level required (Editor or above) and the business consequence that personal contacts are not counted as clients, which affects downstream reporting semantics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a short permission clause, with no filler. The parenthetical about personal contacts is well-placed and earns its space; only the colloquial 'card' costs it a perfect score.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, permission, and one semantic consequence. It does not say whether the call is a partial update, what happens if neither name nor scope is supplied, or what is returned, which an agent would want before invoking.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description carries more burden, and it does map loosely onto 'name' and the client/personal scope. However, it never states that scope accepts the literal values 'client' or 'personal', nor that both editable fields are optional, leaving the enum and optionality to the schema alone.

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 two concrete operations (rename, change scope) on a concrete resource (contact), which cleanly separates it from dosai_get_contact and dosai_list_contacts. The word 'card' is slightly informal where 'contact record' would be unambiguous, but the intent is still readable.

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?

Usage is implied by the two named operations (rename, move between client and personal), and the 'Editor or above' prerequisite is a useful gate. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to an alternative tool for other kinds of contact edits, so the agent must infer when this is the wrong choice.

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