communications_subscribe_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'subscribe' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permission requirements, whether this is reversible (though 'communications_unsubscribe_contact' exists), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the contact is already subscribed. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the legal basis parameters, doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, and provides minimal behavioral context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'contact' which maps to 'contactId', but doesn't explain the two portalSubscription parameters at all. For a tool with 3 parameters (one required, one with an enum), this leaves significant gaps in understanding what values to provide and why.

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 clearly states the action ('Subscribe') and resource ('a contact to all email communications'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_unsubscribe_contact' or 'communications_update_preferences', but the verb 'subscribe' inherently distinguishes it from those alternatives.

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 alternatives like 'communications_update_preferences' or 'communications_update_subscription_status'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for subscription versus preference management.

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