Contacts Permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the optional prompt side effect, but says nothing about what a denied result looks like, whether the prompt surfaces a system dialog, whether results are cached, or whether calling it blocks.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the optional behavior are both stated without 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 no-output-schema permission tool this covers the basic action, but an agent still lacks the outcome/return shape and any precondition (e.g. call before other contacts tools) needed to use it confidently.

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 single 'prompt' boolean has 0% schema description coverage. "Optionally prompt" maps the flag to forcing a permission prompt, partially compensating, but it does not state the default, or the behavioral difference between prompt=true and false.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Check ... Apple Contacts access") and clarifies the optional side effect ("optionally prompt"). It is implicitly distinct from the data-retrieval siblings, but it never names them or states how it differs, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is a hint that a caller may choose to prompt, but no explicit guidance on when to invoke this versus the sibling lookup tools, nor when prompting is appropriate. Usage must be inferred from the name and sentence.

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