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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true, which gives no real safety profile for a creation tool, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds nothing about duplicate handling, required permissions, side effects, or whether the created record is returned.

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences with no filler; the REST endpoint annotation is marginally useful for traceability. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint string could be considered non-essential.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the call returns (new person id?) and any duplicate/permission behavior. It leaves both unstated, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of the call.

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 coverage is 100% and every one of the 9 parameters is documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no extra meaning (e.g. company_id vs company_name precedence is left entirely to the schema), which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new person (contact)') and even names the underlying REST operation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like copper_create_company or copper_create_lead by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as copper_search_people (dedupe check) or copper_create_lead, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The agent must infer all usage context from the tool name alone.

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