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

Annotations provide basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and description confirms the create/update behavior. However, it lacks details on merge behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. Adds some value but not deep transparency.

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?

Description is somewhat cluttered with bullet points for multiple actions, including irrelevant ones for this tool. The flattened action note helps, but the structure could be more streamlined and focused.

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?

Lacks any mention of return values, which is a gap given no output schema. Also does not describe the account parameter. For a mutation tool, more completeness about response and prerequisites would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the fields, identifier, and identifier_type parameters. Only the account parameter remains unexplained. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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?

Tool description explicitly states it performs upsert (cria/atualiza) on contacts, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools get and funnel. However, the description also includes unrelated actions (get and funnel) which slightly muddles the focus on the upsert action.

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?

Description indicates how to identify the contact (by email or uuid), but does not explicitly state when to use upsert versus the sibling tools get or funnel. The usage context is implied but not directly guided.

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