conduyt_ai_summarize_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context by describing the generated content (sentiment, key topics, recommended next steps), which tells the agent what to expect back. However, it omits the operation's nature (it is clearly a read/analysis call, but that is only inferred), whether it consumes AI credits, latency, and what happens if the contact has no interaction history.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the substantive detail (analyzed sources and output fields) follows immediately. The leading phrase 'AI-powered contact summary' mildly restates the name, but the rest of the sentence earns its place.

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 single-input, no-output-schema analysis tool, the description covers the essentials: what it reads, what it returns, and by implication that it is non-mutating. Only minor gaps remain (credit cost, behavior on empty history), which are not fatal given the simple shape of the tool.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema description coverage is 100% ('Contact UUID to summarize'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance for contactId beyond what the schema supplies, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb (summarize) and resource (contact) and enumerates the inputs it consumes (interactions, deals, activities) plus the output shape (sentiment, key topics, next steps). It is clear, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent AI tools such as conduyt_ai_enrich_contact or conduyt_ai_insights, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'analyzes all interactions, deals, and activities to generate a summary' suggests you call it when a synthesized view of a contact is needed. There is no statement of when to prefer this over conduyt_get_contact or the other AI insight tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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