monica_calls

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the delete-confirm requirement ('confirm: true') and the date default ('today by default'). It stops short of describing what deletion affects or permission needs.

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 front-loaded sentence followed by tight per-action bullets; no filler, and the action-to-behavior mapping is scannable.

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?

With no output schema and seven parameters, the description covers the action surface and the confirm gate but omits what list returns and the semantics of contact/content/limit. Adequate minimum for a CRUD tool but with clear gaps.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the date default, the confirm requirement for delete, and that id-based ops apply to update/delete, but leaves contact, content, and limit undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a concrete resource ('Phone calls with contacts') and enumerates all four operations (list, create, update, delete), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like monica_conversations or monica_activities, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

Per-action conditions are given: list returns a contact's calls or recent across everyone, create logs a call with date defaulting to today, update/delete go by id and delete needs confirm:true. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools (e.g., conversations/activities), so alternative selection is implied rather than stated.

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