analytics_start_contact_evaluation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'start an evaluation.' It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it triggers asynchronous processing, whether it changes state, or whether it requires special permissions). The minimal wording gives the agent little to infer about operational impact.

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 and thus concise, but it is under-specified. It provides no context beyond the basic action, making this more under-specification than genuine conciseness. The structure is simple and front-loaded, but the content is insufficient.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to provide essential context such as what an evaluation is, how evaluation_form_id is chosen, or whether the operation is synchronous. For a tool with three required parameters and no annotations, this is too minimal to be considered complete.

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 it does not. Only 'contact' implicitly corresponds to contact_id; instance_id and evaluation_form_id are left entirely unexplained. Without any parameter details, the agent cannot determine what values are expected or how they relate to the evaluation process.

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 uses the specific verb 'start' and identifies the resource as 'an evaluation for a contact,' which clearly conveys the tool's core function. It is implicitly distinguished from sibling tools like analytics_list_contact_evaluations by the action 'start,' though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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, no prerequisites, and no context for its role in the analytics workflow. The only implicit cue is the 'analytics_' prefix in the tool name, which is insufficient.

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