contacts_transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'transfer' without explaining side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the existing routing. This is minimal and could leave an agent unaware of potential impacts like ending current interactions or requiring specific ACLs.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object. However, it is arguably under-specified, though that is more of a completeness issue than a conciseness issue. It earns a 4 for its efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations, the description is too thin. It does not mention constraints (e.g., selecting either a queue or a user), return behavior, or impact on existing interactions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but essential usage context is missing.

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. It adds some meaning by implying the target is either a queue or a user, which maps to user_id and queue_id, but it does not explain the required instance_id and contact_id, nor the relationship (e.g., whether exactly one target must be specified). This is insufficient for full comprehension.

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 (transfer), the resource (a contact), and the target (queue or user). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling contact tools like contacts_start_* or contacts_stop, none of which mention transfer. It lacks explicit differentiation from potential alternatives but the verb and object are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., contact must be active), and no exclusions. The description is purely functional and does not help an agent decide between this and other contact manipulation tools.

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