tg_contact_edit

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the note is private, visible only to the owner, not sent anywhere, and unreadable by the person. Annotations already indicate mutability and destructiveness, but the description usefully clarifies privacy semantics. It does not contradict 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose summary followed by a compact args block. Every sentence adds useful information, and the privacy note is high-value rather than padding.

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?

Given six optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not clarify what happens on overlapping arguments (e.g., delete plus add), what a successful call returns, or what preconditions apply to users being edited.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps phone/name/last_name to adding, user to deletion/noting, delete to removal, and note to private annotation. This provides real meaning beyond the raw parameter names, though it leaves some combination rules implicit.

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 the tool adds a contact by phone number, deletes one, or keeps a private note on a person. It names a specific resource ('contact') and explicit operations, so an agent can understand the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tg_contacts, but the operation set is specific enough.

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 argument-level guidance but no overall when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over related siblings like tg_contacts or tg_person. There is no statement about exclusions or alternative tools for reading contacts.

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