add_contact_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and explicitly marks the operation as 'Write' with downstream consequences: contact segmentation changes and possible automation triggers. It does not cover all edge cases such as duplicate tags or idempotency, but the core mutation and side-effect behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences deliver the action, the source of each parameter, and the behavioral warning with no filler or redundancy. The 'Write:' label efficiently marks the mutation aspect.

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?

Given the low complexity, the description covers what the tool does, how to populate both required parameters, and what side effects to expect. It does not describe return values or duplicate-handling, but these are not critical for an agent to select and invoke this simple write operation.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so this text compensates by explaining where each value comes from: user_ns from find_contact and tag_name from list_tags. This is actionable and adds real meaning beyond the raw property names, though it stops short of defining the value semantics in depth.

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 opens with a specific verb and object, 'Add a tag to one contact,' making the operation and singular scope unmistakable. It naturally distinguishes the tool from siblings such as remove_contact_tag and list_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?

It gives clear invocation guidance by telling the agent to source user_ns from find_contact and tag_name from list_tags. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the singular scope and add/remove sibling context make the intended usage easy to infer.

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