add_contact_to_company

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

No annotations are supplied, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic association. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The agent has no insight into what happens on duplicate associations or failures.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. The brevity does not clearly convey usage boundaries.

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 simple association tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the basic description may be minimally sufficient. However, given the presence of many sibling tools that perform similar associations, the lack of contextual completeness hinders accurate selection by an agent.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions ('Contact ID', 'Company ID'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no further semantics, so the baseline score 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 'Associate contact with company' clearly identifies the verb (associate) and the resources (contact, company). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_contact_to_campaign' by specifying 'company' as the target. However, it lacks precision on whether this creates a new association or updates an existing one.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_contact_to_campaign' or 'add_contact_tags'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals to help the agent decide. The description is purely declarative.

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