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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description must disclose behaviors. It reveals that 'create' posts body in `data` and that bulk support exists with ids, but it does not clarify side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens when `id` is present (potentially implying update behavior, which is confusing for a create tool). It also does not mention response format or error handling. The description is not contradictory, but it is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 brief but poorly structured. It mixes informational content about all actions with the flattening note, and uses mixed language. It is not front-loaded with the create purpose. There is some wasted text about list/get/update that is irrelevant to the create tool, though it may be auto-generated from a template.

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 create operation with no output schema and low parameter clarity, the description is incomplete. It does not specify required fields (e.g., is `data` required?), the structure of `data`, or what the created contact looks like. It also misses guidance on bulk execution, despite mentioning it. Given 10 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must do more.

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 but only vaguely mentions `data` and `ids`. It does not explain parameters like `page`, `with`, `limit`, `order`, `query`, `filter`, `account`, which are likely related to list actions but appear in a create tool schema. The description provides little meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents confused about which parameters are relevant for create.

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 starts with a generic overview of Kommo contacts actions (list, get, create, update) but the flattened action is 'create'. It says 'create (cria, body em data)' which is vague and does not clearly specify what creating a contact entails or what the tool's primary purpose is. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like kommo_contacts_get or kommo_contacts_update beyond the action word, and the description is partially in Portuguese, which may reduce clarity.

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?

There is minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions bulk support with ids but does not explain when one would choose create over update or other tools. It does not provide explicit context or exclusions. The flattened action suggests create is the focus, but there is no explanation of prerequisites or scenarios.

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