set_prospect_do_not_contact

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry transparency. It explains the behavioral consequence (exclusion from re-discovery and outbound targeting) but does not disclose that setting the flag to false clears it, nor any auth requirements or side effects beyond the targeting effect. Partial transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the consequence. No waste.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main effect but does not explain what happens when doNotContact is false (though schema does), nor any error conditions or permissions. It's adequate but not rich.

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 50% (only doNotContact has a description). The tool description clarifies that the prospect is a 'tenant prospect', giving some meaning to prospectId, but does not elaborate further. It doesn't add details about doNotContact beyond the schema. Overall, marginal additional value.

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 ('Set the do_not_contact flag') and the target ('on a tenant prospect'), and explains the consequence (excluded from re-discovery and outbound targeting). This is specific and distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'skip_prospect'.

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 provides context on the effect of setting the flag (exclusion from re-discovery and targeting), implying usage when exclusion is desired, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is an implied rather than explicit guideline.

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