ipt_set_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the write side effect, the replacement behavior, the fact that omitted lists keep current rows, and per-agent required fields. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema shows.

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, each earning its place: write intent, replacement behavior, and critical validation requirements. The most important behavioral information is front-loaded and there is no extraneous wording.

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?

The description gives the core behavioral and validation constraints, but for a tool with five parameters, nested object fields, no output schema, and no annotations it should also clarify the four agent-list parameters and the role of shortname. It is adequate for a cautious agent but not fully 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?

The description adds validation semantics not present in the schema, such as the minimum contact/creator requirement, omitted-list retention, and the need for lastName with organisation or position. However, schema description coverage is only 20% and the description never explains the distinct roles of contacts, creators, associatedParties, and metadataProviders, leaving a significant parameter-meaning gap.

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 opens with '[writes to the IPT]' and states a specific action ('Replace agent lists'), so an agent can tell this mutates IPT agent/contact data. It does not enumerate the four list parameters or contrast with siblings, but it is clearly not a tautology and identifies the operation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like ipt_set_metadata_fields or ipt_replace_eml. The note that the IPT requires at least one contact and one creator is useful as a precondition, but it does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

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