ads_interest_contact_upsert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that consent remains unknown by default and clarifies non-actions (no profile creation, no follow, no message), but omits auth requirements, idempotency/merge behavior on update, rate limits, and return expectations for a 19-parameter 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the safety exclusions and consent default follow immediately.

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 19-parameter upsert with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough to call safely. It establishes intent and key exclusions but leaves most parameter semantics, auth expectations, and update behavior undocumented.

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 0% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate but mostly does not. The only parameter-adjacent hint is that 'consent remains unknown by default,' which relates to consent_status but does not explain channel, external_user_id, status, category, or the other fields.

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 states a specific verb (save or update) and resource (one public discovery candidate in the local interest registry), which is clear. It distinguishes itself from client-profile creation, following, and messaging, but does not explicitly name sibling tools like ads_interest_contact_list.

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?

It gives useful when-not guidance by saying it does not create a client profile, follow anyone, or send a message, helping the agent avoid those incorrect tools. It stops short of naming concrete alternatives or describing positive when-to-use criteria.

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