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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which is counterintuitive for a create operation and deserves explanation, but the description is silent about it. The description does add the useful fact that all fields are optional (so an empty person can be created) and names the underlying REST endpoint. It does not mention permissions, deduplication behavior, or what happens to nested references like companies by name.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the optionality note and endpoint. No wasted words.

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 14-parameter creation tool with nested objects and a destructiveHint annotation, the description omits important context: what the endpoint returns (no output schema), whether an empty creation is allowed, and why destructiveHint is set. The minimum viable content is present but significant gaps remain.

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%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters including nested company/group references. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond repeating that fields are optional. Baseline 3 applies.

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)'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like folk_create_company or folk_update_person. The parenthetical clarifies that 'person' means a contact.

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 folk_create_company or when to prefer linking an existing person. The note that all fields are optional is useful but does not route the agent among tools.

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