contacts_add_remove_contact_from_business

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a mutating but not destructive operation. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It fails to disclose side effects, such as whether the operation is idempotent (idempotentHint=false), what happens if a contact is already associated or not associated, or any prerequisites. The description provides no value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely brief, but brevity is not appropriate here because it omits essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no structure or front-loaded clarity. A single ambiguous phrase cannot be considered well-structured when crucial details are missing.

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 tool that performs two distinct actions (add and remove) without an explicit action parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information on how to indicate the operation, what the response looks like, any constraints, or behavioral nuances. With no output schema and only two required parameters, the agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without additional inference.

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 coverage is only 33% (only locationId has a description), and the description does not explain any of the parameters. Particularly, it does not clarify how 'ids' and 'businessId' are used or how the add/remove behavior is controlled through these inputs. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it offers nothing, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and usage of required fields.

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 'Add/Remove Contacts From Business' essentially restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It combines two actions without explaining what distinguishes adding from removing or how the tool determines which operation to perform. The verb and resource are present, but the ambiguity makes it barely more informative than a tautology.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes contacts_add_contact_to_campaign and contacts_remove_contact_from_campaign, which are similar operations, but the description does not differentiate them or explain the context for adding/removing contacts to/from a business. There is no information about when add vs remove is appropriate or how to specify the action.

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