peach_connect_to_ai_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what happens if the AI agent connection fails. The description mentions automated follow-up but doesn't explain the nature of that automation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the action (send template message), target (contact), and outcome (connect to AI agent for automated follow-up) without redundancy.

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 3 complex nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the AI agent connection works, what 'automated follow-up' entails, or any error conditions. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered given the tool's complexity.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'template message' and 'AI agent' which aligns with the schema's template_message and ai_agent objects, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's already in the structured schema 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 the specific action ('send a template message' and 'connect them to an AI agent') and resource ('a contact'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like peach_send_template_message (which lacks AI agent connection) and peach_create_contact (which only creates contacts). The dual-purpose nature is explicitly articulated.

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 implies usage context (automated follow-up after template message) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like peach_send_template_message (for sending without AI connection) or peach_launch_broadcast (for bulk messaging). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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