conduyt_bulk_dnc_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so unusually well: it discloses the required 'dnc' scope, that an unrestricted key does not imply it, the exact 403 failure mode, and contact-ownership limits for restricted keys. It does not cover bulk-specific behavior such as batch size caps, partial-failure semantics, or whether a removal fully restores dialability, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then permissions, then the read alternative — a sensible decision-ordering for an agent. The long scope sentence is dense but every clause (explicit, admin-granted, unrestricted key insufficient, 403) prevents a distinct failure.

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 bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission gate, and alternative well enough to call it safely. The remaining gap is the absence of any indication of the response shape (counts of applied vs skipped contacts), which matters for a bulk operation with no output schema.

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, action, reason, and contactIds are already documented in the schema, including the enum meanings and the skip-without-phone rule. The description adds only the framing that contactIds is plural and the marks come in two tiers, which is baseline value.

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 pair (add/remove), the exact resource (Do-Not-Contact / litigator mark), and the scope (many contacts), which separates it from single-record DNC siblings purely by the word 'many'. It also labels the operation's nature as a compliance action, so an agent knows the stakes before reading the 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use and an explicit when-NOT-to-use with the named alternative: checking whether a number is already blocked should go to conduyt_get_contact or the dnc-status read. That is exactly the routing decision an agent needs, and the ownership caveat adds a second precondition.

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