conduyt_set_contact_table_defaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the permission needed, the additive append-only effect ('nothing they already show moves'), the 8-id cap, the 'custom:<fieldKey>' requirement that the key must exist, and the default read-then-write revision behavior. It even specifies the conflict response shape { conflict: true, current } and that nothing was overwritten — exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before a 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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent clause adds distinct value (permission, merge semantics, cap, format, fencing, conflict outcome). Density is high but there is no filler 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 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: authorization, propagation semantics, validation constraints, and the failure/conflict contract. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining why expectedRevision matters (fencing against a concurrent change) and what happens when it is omitted, plus the custom field key format and hard limit. It does not document the column-id syntax beyond the example already in the schema.

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 (Set), a specific resource (account-level default columns for the Contacts list), and the scope (account-wide, affecting every user's saved layout). It is unambiguous against siblings like get_contact_table_defaults, which reads rather than writes the same setting.

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 parenthetical '(settings:edit)' gives the prerequisite, and the revision-fencing explanation tells the agent how to invoke it correctly (pass expectedRevision from a row read earlier, or let it read current). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or an exclusion case, which keeps it short of a 5.

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