conduyt_add_dnc

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and delivers meaningful behavior: phone entries block the NUMBER account-wide across dialer and SMS, scope and admin restrictions apply. It does not disclose what happens on duplicate entries, reversibility, or the response shape, leaving some gaps for a compliance-sensitive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packs the action, both entity modes, the target lists, the operational effect, and the scope/admin constraints, with an inline example. No sentence is redundant.

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 4-parameter, annotation-free mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences, authorization and list tiers adequately. It omits duplicate-entry behavior and confirmation of the result, which an agent would want before calling.

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%, so tier, phone, reason and contactId are already documented with formats and defaults. The description reinforces the phone-vs-contact distinction and the account-wide effect of phone entries, but adds little beyond the schema's own text. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a phone number (or a contact) to the Do-Not-Call or litigator list') and covers both input modes. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like conduyt_remove_dnc, conduyt_list_dnc and conduyt_bulk_dnc_contacts without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a concrete trigger utterance ('add this number to the do not call list') plus the two governing conditions: the 'dnc' API-key scope is required, and the litigator tier is admin-only. It stops short of naming alternatives such as the bulk-DNC sibling for multi-contact additions, so the routing is clear but not complete.

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