tag_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious behaviors: tags are lower-cased, spaces become hyphens, VIP and vip are treated as the same tag, and tagging applies to the contact across all audiences. It does not address edge cases like unknown tags or idempotence, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 four compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: tag definition, normalization behavior, cross-audience scope, and a usage recommendation. No wasted words.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers purpose, tag semantics, normalization, cross-audience effects, and a recommended prerequisite call. The main gaps are edge behaviors such as whether unknown tags are created automatically and how remove behaves for a non-existent tag, but the list_tags guidance reduces the practical risk.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides valuable semantics for tag values: they are flat labels, normalized by lower-casing and hyphenating spaces, and should preferably be drawn from list_tags. The mapping of add/remove to adding/removing tags is clear, though it doesn't explicitly discuss combining both parameters or obtaining contact_id.

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 first sentence clearly states the action ('Add or remove tags') and the resource ('on a contact'). The additional contrast between tags and custom properties helps an agent distinguish this tool from property-editing tools like update_contact.

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 gives concrete workflow guidance: call list_tags first and reuse existing tags rather than inventing equivalents. It also implicitly warns against using tags where custom properties are intended. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for custom property changes, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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