apple_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that some actions are destructive or require confirmation, nor any side effects. The schema's 'confirm' parameter hints at protected actions, but the description itself adds zero behavioral 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, but it under-specifies a complex multi-action tool. Listing actions duplicates the schema and offers no insight, making it both concise and inadequate. It is not effectively front-loaded with useful information.

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?

With 9 actions, 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line summary is severely incomplete. It lacks information about return formats, error conditions, prerequisites, or which actions are destructive, leaving the agent without essential context for invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for every parameter, including detailed action explanations. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing action names, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 says 'Control Apple Contacts' which is vague and restates the tool name. It lists action names but gives no explanation of what each does, relying on the schema's enum descriptions. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like apple_mail or apple_calendar.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The action enumeration is a catalog, not usage guidance. There are no conditions, exclusions, or examples to help an agent select this tool appropriately.

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