Tag and annotate a contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: nothing is sent to WhatsApp, the contact never sees it, the phone is unchanged, and empty field values delete keys. It also clarifies that remove_tags/remove_fields take keys away. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is compact yet information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, search integration, privacy guarantee, deletion semantics, and usage constraint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses concrete examples ('client', 'echipa', {'role': 'contabil'}) to illustrate without bloat.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what the tool does, how it integrates with search, privacy implications, deletion behavior, and the minimum-edit requirement. The annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of tags and fields (how they resolve in search_contacts), the deletion semantics for empty values, and the requirement to pass at least one edit. This complements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: file local, searchable details on a person via tags and key-value fields. It uses specific verbs ('file', 'set', 'delete') and distinguishes itself from related tools like search_contacts and remove_tags/remove_fields. The title 'Tag and annotate a contact' reinforces the purpose without being a tautology.

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 description explicitly explains when to use this tool: to add searchable metadata to a contact, and how it relates to search_contacts ('this is how 'the accountant' or 'all suppliers' resolve later'). It also states constraints: pass at least one of the four edits, and the person need not be a saved contact. This provides clear usage context and differentiates from siblings.

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