add_loyalty_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic operation and required fields, but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens on duplicate additions. This is insufficient for behavioral understanding.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It is concise but could benefit from a brief structure (e.g., separate requirement info).

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about behavior, error cases, or return value. It only covers the most basic usage, leaving agents underinformed for robust execution.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds that loyalty_key comes from list_loyalty_cards (already in schema) and phone format (already in schema). However, it omits the required customer_name parameter, which could mislead an agent into thinking only two parameters are needed.

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 action (adds a contact to a loyalty card) and mentions required inputs (loyalty_key and phone). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_contact and add_wallet_contact by specifying the loyalty card context.

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 implies when to use (adding a contact to a loyalty card) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tool names give context, but no direct comparison is made.

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