communications_subscribe_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a mutation (likely yes), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., email notifications), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies subscription states, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and error handling. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use given the tool's complexity.

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 must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'contactId' refers to, the meaning of 'portalSubscriptionLegalBasis' enum values, or when 'portalSubscriptionLegalBasisExplanation' is needed. With 3 parameters entirely undocumented, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context.

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 action ('Subscribe') and resource ('a contact to all email communications'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_unsubscribe_contact' or 'communications_update_preferences', which would require a more specific comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'communications_update_preferences' or 'communications_unsubscribe_contact', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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