bardo_contact_set

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds the behavioral trait of requiring a step-up puzzle and the two-call flow, which is beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations. The description could be improved by mentioning idempotency, but the annotation already covers that.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information. 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?

The description covers the puzzle workflow and the purpose. However, it does not explain the return value format (what the puzzle looks like) or the purpose of session_token. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate. Slight gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains endpoint (the contact to set/update), challenge_id and answer (puzzle solution). However, session_token is not mentioned. This leaves one parameter undocumented, but the description adds value for the others.

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 'Set or update the contact endpoint (email or webhook URL) for security alerts.' The verb 'set or update' and the resource 'contact endpoint' are specific. The mention of 'security alerts' provides context, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like bardo_contact_delete and bardo_contact_get.

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 explains the step-up puzzle requirement and the two-call process: first call without challenge_id and answer to get a puzzle, then solve it and call again with all three parameters. This provides clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare directly with sibling tools.

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