import_contacts_manual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation action and the input format, omitting behaviors like validation of phone numbers, handling of duplicates, or success/failure responses.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core information. No unnecessary words or redundant details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and input format. However, it lacks completeness by not mentioning prerequisites (e.g., list existence) or side effects, which would be helpful for safe usage.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, such as the phone format, but this is adequate.

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 specifies the action ('import contacts'), the target resource ('marketing list'), and the method ('manually typing phone numbers'). It distinguishes from sibling import tools by emphasizing manual entry, but could be more explicit about when to use this over CSV or TXT imports.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_contacts_csv or import_contacts_from_conversations. The description only implies manual entry, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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