Attach disposition contact

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Executes directly' (synchronous execution) and 'Write' (mutation) which are behavioral details not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 concise (three short statements) and front-loads the action. 'Executes directly' and 'Write' are somewhat fragmented but do not waste words, so it earns above-average score.

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, the description explains the action and the required state ('pending disposition'), but it does not cover return values, error expectations, or prerequisites like the existence of the contact/disposition. Annotations provide some safety context, but the description alone is 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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states for 'id' and 'contactId', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Assign' and clearly identifies the resource ('existing recipient/buyer contact') and target ('pending disposition'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_acquisition_contact by explicitly naming the disposition context.

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 phrase 'pending disposition' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying it should be used for dispositions that are not yet committed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the disposition-specific wording makes the intended use evident.

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