contacts_create_association

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate a non-read, non-destructive operation. The description adds no context about whether tags are added, removed, or overwritten, nor about the 'removeAllTags' option. It fails to disclose the actual behavior beyond the generic 'update' verb.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified and fails to convey essential information. It is not concise in a beneficial way; it omits critical details about the tool's operation and parameters, making it closer to a placeholder than a useful summary.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no enums. The description provides no information about the 'type' parameter's role, the semantics of removeAllTags, or how this relates to other tag management tools. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional external documentation.

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 100%, so each parameter (tags, type, contacts, locationId, removeAllTags) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update Contacts Tags' gives a verb and resource, but 'update' is vague and could mean add, remove, or overwrite. The tool name 'contacts_create_association' suggests creating associations, while the description says 'update', which is inconsistent. It does not differentiate from siblings like contacts_add_tags or contacts_remove_tags.

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 the more specific sibling tools contacts_add_tags and contacts_remove_tags. It does not mention the 'type' parameter or the use case for bulk association management, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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