unmerge_contact_profiles

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the dryRun parameter for safe testing, but does not explain what happens to the original merged profile (e.g., whether it is deleted or transformed) or any other behavioral side effects.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives usage guidance and a warning. It is efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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?

The description covers the basic scenario and necessary parameters, but lacks details about post-unmerge state, prerequisites (e.g., profile must be merged), or potential limitations. For a mutating tool with no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reiterating the dryRun flag, providing only context for when to use the tool.

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 verb 'splits' and the resource 'merged Cognigy.AI contact profile'. It explicitly contrasts with incorrect merging, distinguishing it from sibling tools like merge_contact_profiles.

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 specifies when to use ('when profiles were incorrectly merged') and warns about the mutating nature with dryRun. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implied inverse.

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