add_contact_datatag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It incorrectly mentions a 'comment' which implies a different behavior than what the schema suggests (adding a data tag to a contact). It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the operation creates or updates a comment. The description is actively misleading.

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, which is concise in length, but it is inaccurate and omits the core term 'data tag'. It fails to earn its place because it provides misleading information rather than clarifying the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of data tags and the existence of a comment-specific sibling tool, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a data tag is, how it applies to a contact, or how it differs from adding to a comment. The output schema exists, but the description's misinformation undermines overall understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for id, items, and dataTag. The description adds no additional parameter semantics and even introduces confusion with the word 'comment'. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 says 'Add value of an additional field to a new contact comment', but the tool name and schema indicate it adds a data tag to a contact, not to a comment. This is misleading and does not clearly distinguish from the sibling tool add_contact_datatag_to_comment. The verb is present, but the resource is ambiguous and potentially incorrect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling add_contact_datatag_to_comment. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. This lack of usage context makes it hard for an agent to choose the correct tool.

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