manage_contact_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details side effects for each action, including the nuance of delete_contacts. It also mentions the OAuth scope requirement. It does not cover rate limits or error conditions, but for this context, it is fairly transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence serves a distinct function: purpose, side effects, and usage alternatives/auth. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, all action behaviors, deletion nuance, reading alternatives, and auth. It omits error handling and prerequisites beyond auth, but is largely complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema by summarizing actions, but each parameter is already well-described in the schema. No new parameter semantics are provided.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create, update, delete, or modify members of a contact group.' It uses specific verbs and specifies the resource (contact group), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_contact_groups and manage_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 explicitly says 'For reading use list_contact_groups / get_contact_group,' providing a clear when-not scenario. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling mutation tools like manage_contact (individual contacts) or manage_contacts_batch, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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