b24_crm_deal_contacts_set

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

The description merely says 'Set the contacts', which implies replacement, but the schema's description of 'contact_ids' already states 'Replaces the current set.' No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions needed, side effects on other fields, rate limits) are disclosed beyond what annotations and schema already provide. With readOnlyHint=false and no destructiveHint, the agent knows it's a mutation but lacks deeper context.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, efficiently conveying the main purpose. The API method name in parentheses is a helpful addition. However, it could be slightly more structured to include usage hints without adding much 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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is overly minimal. It doesn't explain what happens when the deal doesn't exist, or if contact IDs are invalid. The annotations and schema partially compensate, but the description lacks contextual completeness for an agent to safely invoke the tool without prior knowledge.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey. For example, 'deal_id' is not further explained. The tool description does not enhance the semantic understanding of any parameter.

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 'Set' and the resource 'contacts linked to a deal', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also includes the underlying API method name, which adds specificity. The sibling tools include other set operations like 'b24_crm_productrows_set', but this tool's name and description uniquely identify its focus on contacts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to add contacts individually or when to use other CRM set tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback behavior, or when not to use it.

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