Mark Contact Off-Limit

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful context: the batch limit (up to 25), required parameters, and the return payload (updated slug list, status_id, end_date, reason, API remark). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Every clause adds value: scope, limits, required parameters, format, optional field, and return values.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations covering destructiveness, the description provides enough context for a batch mutation tool: max items, required fields, and return format. It lacks a note on irreversibility or prerequisites like resolving status_id with list_off_limit_statuses, but that's already in the schema.

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%, with each parameter already documented. The description restates required parameters and the date format but adds little beyond the schema; the only extra is clarifying that reason is optional, which is already implied by not being in the required list.

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 uses a specific verb ('Marks') with a clear resource ('Recruit CRM contacts') and action ('off-limit'), and specifies a batch limit of 25. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mark_candidate_off_limit and mark_company_off_limit by explicitly targeting contacts.

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 states required and optional parameters and the date format, which gives usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like mark_records_available or explain when to use this tool instead of other off-limit marking tools, leaving differentiation to the resource type alone.

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