teamleader_tag_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that tags are created if they don't exist and that existing tags are not overwritten—both crucial behavioral details. However, it does not mention whether adding an already-existing tag is idempotent, what happens if the contact ID is invalid, or any feedback about success/failure. These gaps prevent a higher score, though the core mutational behavior is disclosed.

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, with the primary purpose and side effect in the first sentence and the key distinction from update in the second. Every word earns its place; it is concise, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 tool with only two parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation, side effect, and differentiation from update. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but given the simplicity and the absence of annotations, these omissions are minor and do not significantly hinder an agent from using the tool correctly.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: 'id' as contact ID and 'tags' as tags to add. The description adds only a behavioral nuance about tag creation and preservation, which is more about tool behavior than parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'tags to a contact', and immediately distinguishes it from the 'update' operation by noting it does not overwrite existing tags. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from related siblings like teamleader_untag_contact and teamleader_update_contact.

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 provides an explicit contrast with 'update' ('Unlike update, this does not overwrite existing tags'), which implies when to use this tool—when tags should be added without replacing the existing set. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or cover other siblings like untag, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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