set_contact_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not say whether changing a policy is reversible, whether it affects existing contacts or pending requests, whether it requires elevated permissions (registration_token is a parameter), or how the four policies differ behaviorally.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key discriminator (the four policy values) front-loaded. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity rather than verbose.

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 described, but for a five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. Scope, permissions, and policy semantics are all missing.

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% for all five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It lists the policy values (useful, since the schema declares no enum for policy), but project_key, agent_name, format, and registration_token are entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (set) and resource (contact policy for an agent) and even enumerates the valid policy values, so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from contact-related siblings such as request_contact, respond_contact, or list_contacts, leaving the boundary implicit.

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 says what the tool does but never when to use it: no prerequisites, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives like request_contact or macro_contact_handshake. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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