bexio Contact Groups

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; the description reinforces this by stating delete is 'destructive, cannot be undone'. It also describes payload requirements for create/update. No contradictions found.

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 but packs dense information into one paragraph. It could benefit from bullet or action-specific structuring for easier scanning, but it remains efficient without excess words.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: pagination, sorting, search fields, payload requirements, and destructive behavior. It fully equips an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by providing examples for order_by (e.g., 'id_desc'), clarifying searchable fields for search, and noting partial behavior for payload on update.

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 tool manages contact groups and lists all specific actions (list, search, get, create, update, delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on contact groups and referencing their role as categories assigned via contact_group_ids.

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 explicit context for each action, including required and optional parameters (e.g., limit, offset for list; search_criteria for search). It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the tool name and specificity make usage clear.

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