Manage contact licenses

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

The description says the tool can 'delete' a license, which is a destructive operation, but the annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The description also lacks any explanation of side effects, permissions, or reversibility beyond 'Executes directly.'

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?

Two crisp sentences deliver the essential information with no waste. The action list, field mapping, and execution note are all relevant and well-structured.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core action logic but omits details about copyOnFile and expiration semantics (though schema covers expiration), potential return values, and error scenarios. The contradiction also weakens completeness.

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 meaningful action-specific parameter requirements that go beyond the schema, clarifying that type and number are for add, while licenseId is for update/delete. Schema coverage is 75%, and this guidance compensates for ambiguity in optional parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Add, update, or delete') and a clear resource ('a license on a contact'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which manage contact licenses.

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?

Provides explicit conditional guidance for each action ('For add provide type+number; for update/delete provide licenseId'), which is essential for correct invocation. It does not name alternatives because none exist, but the context is clear.

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