Manage Contact Group

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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent, so the description need not repeat that. It does not add extra behavioral context beyond the listed actions, such as the cascading delete_contacts side effect, which is left to the parameter schema.

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 with no filler. The core operations are front-loaded, and the consolidation rationale is stated in one short follow-up sentence.

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?

With full schema coverage and an output schema, an agent has enough structured detail to invoke the tool correctly. It could be improved by explicitly routing users to read-only group tools or highlighting the delete_contacts cascade, but the core consolidation intent is clear.

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 baseline applies. The description's action list maps directly onto the action parameter values, but it does not add dependency or relationship details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear set of actions—create, update, delete, or modify members—tied to a specific resource: contact groups. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly noting it is a consolidated replacement for several older sibling tools.

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 clearly establishes this as the tool to use for contact group mutations, replacing four dedicated tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer read-only siblings like list_contact_groups or get_contact_group.

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