respond_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden yet discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It never mentions permissions, whether the 'registration_token' parameter implies an auth requirement, what ttl_seconds controls, or how approval/denial affects the requesting agent's state. Only the implication that this is a state-changing decision is conveyed.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but for a tool with eight parameters it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no structural help (no bullets, no parameter hints) to aid invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine required inputs, auth needs, or side effects from this text.

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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and instead says nothing about any parameter. It does not clarify that 'accept' is the approve/deny switch, nor explain the roles of ttl_seconds, registration_token, from_project, or from_agent.

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 gives a specific verb pair ('Approve or deny') and resource ('contact request'), so the operation is immediately unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like request_contact or macro_contact_handshake, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as request_contact, list_contacts, set_contact_policy, or macro_contact_handshake. The single sentence conveys the action but leaves all routing decisions to the agent.

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