agenthop_save_contact

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still discloses non-obvious behavior: the contact record enables name-based invites with no pairing code, and reciprocity is required for invitations to succeed. Nothing contradicts the annotations; it simply does not discuss idempotency of repeated saves.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence for invites, then the precondition. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the action, the downstream benefit, and the reciprocity precondition. It omits only what a save returns or whether re-saving overwrites an existing name, which are minor gaps.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already giving a good example ('alice or Sam's laptop'). The description references inviting 'by name' but adds no formatting or uniqueness rules beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 ('Save the other side of this conversation ... as a contact') and clarifies the downstream effect on agenthop_invite, so the agent understands what this produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like agenthop_contacts or agenthop_forget_contact, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Specifies the timing window ('ongoing or just finished') and states a hard prerequisite: the counterpart must also save you, otherwise invitations 'will not be taken.' That is real routing-relevant context. It stops short of naming when not to use the tool or an explicit alternative.

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