link_email_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only includes the tag '[mutation]' indicating a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, whether it overrides existing links, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 sentence plus a tag, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured for clarity, especially in a non-English context.

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 link operation with no output schema, the description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist), success criteria, or what happens on duplicate links, making it incomplete 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema's descriptions of 'thread_id' and 'phone'.

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 action 'vincular' (link) and the resources: WhatsApp contact and email thread, with the purpose of associating conversations. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'unlink_email_contact'.

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 for linking a WhatsApp contact to an email thread, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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