set_contact_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (full updated effective-state list) but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or whether it overrides or merges previous states.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose succinctly, the second details the topics parameter and return value. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 description covers the core operation and return, but given the lack of output schema and annotations, it omits error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., contact existence), and potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: it provides an example of the topics list structure, explains the state enum values, and clarifies that the full updated list is returned, which goes beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'contact's per-topic subscription states', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_contact_topics (retrieves) and bulk unsubscribe/resubscribe.

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 for granular per-topic control but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unsubscribe_contact, resubscribe_contact) or any prerequisites.

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