Add Contact to Group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling when the contact is already in the group, permissions required, or any return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential usage constraints. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter usage, and prerequisite lookup. It does not explain behavior when both group_id and group_name are supplied, but the instruction 'not both' implies this is invalid, making the description mostly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutually exclusive relationship between group_id and group_name and by indicating where to find valid group IDs via get_groups, which is not fully captured in the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 'Add a contact to a group' with the specific CRM context, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_contact_from_group and get_contacts_in_group by its action, making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on parameter usage: use either group_id or group_name (not both), and directs users to get_groups for valid group IDs. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for proper tool selection and invocation.

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