Manage Contact Group

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's mention of 'delete' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations and the schema already convey, such as irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and consolidation. Every part contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 4 actions), the description provides a clear high-level overview. It does not explain action-specific behavior, but the schema and output schema fill that gap, making the description sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 no parameter-level detail, only summarizing the action types. It does not contradict or extend the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Create, update, delete a contact group, or modify its members.' It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is a 'Consolidated tool replacing create_contact_group, update_contact_group, delete_contact_group, and modify_contact_group_members.'

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 identifies the four tools it replaces, giving clear guidance on when to use this consolidated tool versus the alternatives. The action parameter enumeration further supports when to use it, though it stop short of describing when not to use other group-related tools like listing.

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