monica_contact_field

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

Discloses that delete is irreversible, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not cover other side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially addresses it.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, listing the resource and actions with a critical warning.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks details on return values, error handling, default behavior for list (e.g., default page/limit), and relationships with other entities. However, for a straightforward CRUD tool, it provides a functional baseline.

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 tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it lists actions but does not elaborate on parameter usage or examples. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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?

Clearly states it manages contact_fields with specific CRUD actions: list, get, create, update, delete. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the resource (contact_fields) and the operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like monica_contact_field_type or monica_contact. The description only lists actions without explaining scenarios or prerequisites.

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