Promote contact

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it states the outcome is one-way, rewrites nothing about the person, writes only to local state, touches no mail, and returns only an outcome, not the record. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description provides critical side-effect and return-value context that is not captured elsewhere.

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 every sentence earns its place: it explains the purpose, the uniqueness of the path, the effect on update_contact, the scope of side effects, and the return behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids jargon or fluff, making it both concise and informative.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the state transition, the prerequisite (collected contact), the exclusivity, the side-effect limitations, and how to retrieve the record afterward (via get_contact). The output schema handles return values, so no additional explanation is needed. The description fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes the contactId parameter with full coverage (100%), including how it is returned from listings or reads. The description reinforces this by clarifying it's the ID of a collected person and adds context on its origin. While the schema does the heavy lifting, the description's mention of 'as a listing or an earlier read returned it' adds useful practical guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a baseline 3.

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 function: it promotes a collected contact to an asserted one, with specific verbs and resource ('takes on one person'). It also explicitly distinguishes this from other operations by noting it is the only path between the two origins and one-way, and mentions its relationship to update_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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when wanting to assert a collected contact. It also notes that it unlocks update_contact and that it writes only to local state, implying it's not for mail operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'do not use if the contact is already asserted' (though it mentions that such contacts answer alreadyAsserted), nor does it name alternative tools for other scenarios. Overall, usage guidance is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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