person

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds rich behavioral detail: delete is permanent and requires displayName to match exactly, update keeps omitted fields, add/update default to deceased, living people are hidden from shared/public views, and remove_relationship unlinks without deleting either person. These details go well beyond the annotations.

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?

Though long, the description is densely packed and action-keyed, with each clause providing distinct operational facts and no filler. The semicolon and middle-dot structure makes the eleven actions scannable despite the length.

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 high-complexity tool with 27 parameters and no output schema, the description covers a remarkable amount: list/get/find return behavior, deletion permanence and safety, living-person privacy, and modifier semantics. However, a few actions (relationship_to_home, add, link_existing, delete) lack explicit return-value or post-condition details, so it is nearly complete but not fully exhaustive.

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 only 26%, so the description carries significant weight. It explains type codes (F/M/C/H/W), relationship values, modifier codes (pcb/pca/pcs/pcf/spu/spx/spp), the delete displayName requirement, list pagination and name filtering, includeSourceDetails, and anchorPersonId semantics. A few parameters such as view, generationsUp/generationsDown, and originalModifier remain undocumented, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 identifies the resource as people in a tree and enumerates eleven concrete actions (list, find, get, add, update, delete, etc.), so an agent knows exactly what operations are available. While it lacks a single verb+resource phrase, the action inventory is specific and clearly separates this tool from siblings like fact, media, or notes.

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 gives clear within-tool selection guidance: 'brief rows — use get for details,' add vs. link_existing vs. update vs. change_relationship distinctions, and the note about read-only access on public trees. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but it provides enough context for choosing the correct action.

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