add_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: 'Add' implies a write, but there is no mention of duplicate handling, permission/auth requirements, or what happens when app_id does not exist. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the mutation semantics remain opaque.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the four undocumented parameters.

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 mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description should at minimum explain the email/role/app_id parameters and any duplicate or validation behavior. The presence of an output schema offsets the need to describe return values, but the input and mutation side is left largely unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not. Four parameters (name, role, email, app_id) are never explained or mapped to the description's concepts; 'recruiter, hiring manager' hints at the role field at best, while email and app_id get no meaning at all.

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 and resource ('Add a contact person to an application') and gives examples of the role types covered (recruiter, hiring manager), so an agent can distinguish it from add_application or add_interview_feedback. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the object of the action is 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the parenthetical examples only clarify what a 'contact' is, not when to call this tool versus update_application or add_interview_feedback. The phrase 'to an application' weakly implies a pre-existing app_id is required, but that prerequisite is never stated.

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