iva_contacts

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose side effects for destructive actions like remove, reject_invitation, or update, nor does it mention confirmation behavior, permissions, or rate limits. The action names imply mutation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what is obvious from the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the domain, but it is an unstructured list that partially duplicates the action enum. It also introduces 'search' even though no search action exists in the enum, which is slightly misleading. The trailing API version adds little value.

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?

This is a high-complexity dispatcher tool with 12 parameters, 12 actions, nested objects, and no output schema. The description does not explain which parameters apply to which actions, what the return values look like, or how pagination and date filters work. The schema helps, but the description leaves important contextual gaps for an agent selecting and invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the action enum has detailed per-action descriptions, so the schema already documents parameters well. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable here since the schema covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('IVA contacts') and enumerates the main operations (get, changes, presences, invitations, invite, reject, remove, update, create note), so an agent can tell this is a contacts-management dispatcher. It is distinct from sibling tools by domain, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools like iva_interlocutors.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any sibling or alternative. The description lists operations but does not state selection criteria, prerequisites, or which sibling tools cover related but different domains.

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