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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions private contact scope and specific address-exclusion/rejection logic. However, it does not explain what 'cross-field addresses' means or what happens to existing contact data during enrichment, leaving meaningful behavior undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The trailing address-handling clause is dense and slightly awkward but not redundant or padded.

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?

Given 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, a destructiveHint annotation, and sibling import/prepare tools, the description should clarify the import workflow, confirmation/idempotency needs, and overwrite behavior. It covers only the two required parameters and leaves the rest of the invocation context underspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'business-card image' to business_card_file and 'selected project' to project_id, but six other parameters—confirmation_token, idempotency_key, capture_source, content_type, filename, and person_id—receive no prose explanation. The names and defaults hint at meaning but do not fully compensate.

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 action ('Create or enrich'), a clear resource ('private CRM contact'), a concrete input ('business-card image'), and project scope ('selected project'). It also adds distinguishing details about address handling that separate it from sibling get/import tools.

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 verb 'Create or enrich' and the business-card input imply direct-ingest usage, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus crm.prepare_business_card_import or crm.get_business_card_import. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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