monica_contact_info

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail: removes on fields/addresses require confirm:true, and adding tags by name silently creates new tags as a side effect. That is useful mutation context beyond the structured hints, though it doesn't cover auth/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?

The description is dense but front-loaded and organized around the action matrix, so each clause earns its place given 14 parameters and four operations. It is longer than ideal but avoids 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 14-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema tool, the operation-by-operation coverage is strong, and the 'list' bullet effectively conveys what is returned. The one notable omission is how the target contact is identified, which an agent needs before calling.

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 14%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does — it explains action values, kind (field/address/tag), type-by-name, value, id, tags-by-name, and the confirm flag. Gaps remain: the required 'contact' identifier and the individual address fields (street/city/province/country/postal_code) are never explained, though their names are largely self-evident.

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 opening names the resource (a contact's fields, postal addresses, and tags) and the action matrix makes clear this is a CRUD tool over those sub-resources. It is specific but doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling monica_contacts, leaving the agent to infer that this handles details rather than the contact record itself.

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 bulleted action map (list/add/update/remove) tells the agent which operation to choose for each task, and it routes field-type discovery to monica_reference kind=contact_field_types. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool versus a sibling, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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