tg_contact_edit

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the private nature of the note (only owner sees, not sent anywhere). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like deletion irreversibility, overwriting existing contacts, or permission requirements, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With six parameters and three operations, the description is mostly adequate but leaves ambiguities: 'user' is not fully explained, and there are no notes about edge cases like conflicting parameters or behavior when adding an existing contact. The presence of an output schema lessens the burden for return values, but overall the description is just minimally viable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the role of each parameter: phone, name, last_name for adding; user for delete/note; delete flag; and note with privacy semantics. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it lacks format details (e.g., phone format, user ID vs username) and combination constraints.

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 first sentence clearly states three specific operations: add a contact by phone number, delete one, or keep a private note. This distinctively identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like tg_contacts (listing) and generic tg_edit.

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 Args section explicitly defines which parameters are used for adding, deleting, or noting, providing clear operational usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage patterns are unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool among siblings.

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