Record human approval to contact the subject

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and delivers: it discloses idempotency behavior (identical re-approval returns the existing record; different values are refused), a matching precondition (name and number must match the brief), and the downstream enforcement role. This is materially more than the schema conveys.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and gate semantics, ending with the next step. No redundancy, though the caveat about identical vs. different values could be slightly compressed.

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 7-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, precondition, idempotency, refusal behavior, and the follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every one of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the matching requirement for name/number but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('A human records that InterLogue may contact exactly this person') and immediately frames it as the 'no-cold-outreach gate', which distinguishes it from siblings like discover_contacts or place_call. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the dependency: 'run_interview refuses to proceed without a matching record' and closes with 'Next step: run_interview.' It gives both when-to-use (before interviewing) and the constraint that selects it (the gate).

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