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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: no change occurs until a human approves the exact request in Settings > MCP and execute_approved_action is called, and business workflow approvals always apply. This clarifies the approval gating for a non-read-only mutation, though it does not cover duplicate handling or failure modes.

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 four sentences with no filler, and the approval caveats are valuable. The first sentence is broad and could be tightened, and the action would be better front-loaded, but overall it is efficient.

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?

It covers the critical approval workflow for a mutation and references execute_approved_action, while the output schema handles return values. However, it omits parameter guidance for the nested contact object and does not address duplicate creation or rejection outcomes, which leaves a meaningful gap given the schema complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description says nothing about the single nested data parameter, the required firstName field, or optional fields like email, phone, and company. The field names themselves carry basic semantics, but the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a contact' within RetailHardHat contacts records. The action is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish create_contact from relatives like update_contact, get_contact, or list_contacts.

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 'Use this when working with RetailHardHat contacts records' is broad and could apply to read or update operations as well as creation. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as update_contact. The approval note explains post-call workflow, not how to choose this tool over siblings.

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