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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the "WRITE" prefix mostly restates structured data. The description does add the endpoint (POST /contacts/) and confirms the two required fields, but stays silent on the meaningful trait implied by idempotentHint=false: that repeat calls create duplicate records, and on what the response returns.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the write marker and the essential required fields, with zero padding. It is terse rather than bloated, though the telegraphic style leaves room it could have used productively.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description omits four of the parameters, says nothing about the returned identifier for the newly created contact, and gives no duplicate-handling behavior. An agent would have to inspect the schema and guess at the response.

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 50% schema description coverage, half the parameters (tags, rating, description, middle_name) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description only re-states which fields are required versus optional, information the schema's required array already carries, so it adds no compensating semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("WRITE: create a contact"), which cleanly separates it from the create_company/create_deal/create_case siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough that an agent can route on it.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus cogmento_update_record_field, or whether to check for an existing contact via cogmento_list_contacts first. Required-vs-optional fields are stated, but that is input contract, not usage context.

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