atcChangeContact

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to mutate but not destroy. The description adds context by explaining the specific effect (moves the finding to another worklist). It does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to the old worklist beyond the move. This is a moderate disclosure beyond annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Change who is responsible') followed by a clarifying clause ('moves the finding into another worklist'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the action and its primary effect. It does not mention the response format or potential errors, but these are less critical for a straightforward reassignment. The description is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does and what inputs are needed, given the schema already documents parameter meanings.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters: userId (The ID of the user) and itemUri (The URI of the item). The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that itemUri refers to an ATC finding and that changing responsibility implies userId is the new responsible user. This goes beyond the schema's generic labels, enriching parameter understanding.

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 (Change), resource (who is responsible for an ATC finding), and clarifies the effect (moves the finding into another worklist). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like atcContactUri (likely retrieves contact info) and atcWorklists (lists worklists). The action and outcome are unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when you need to reassign an ATC finding to a different user. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools. It is not misleading, but the guidance is only implicit and lacks exclusions or sibling differentiation.

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