respond_to_agent_contact_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return value (JSON string confirming action) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., irreversibility), error conditions, or permission requirements. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, bullet points for actions, and a clear Args/Returns section. It is concise, every sentence adds value, and it is easy to scan.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (implied), the description covers the essential context: actions, identification, and return value. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but for a contact request response tool, it is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds full meaning: action enums explained, handle and request_id described as optional identification fields, and the constraint that at least one must be provided. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of textual descriptions.

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 it responds to contact requests with three specific actions (approve, reject, cancel), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle only one action each. The verb 'respond to' combined with the resource 'agent contact request' is specific.

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 explains when to use each action and how to identify the request (by handle or request_id). It does not explicitly exclude cases where sibling tools might be preferred, but it provides clear context for each action.

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