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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, which is itself ambiguous for a create operation, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds the underlying endpoint (POST /management/contacts) but says nothing about duplicate/uniqueness handling, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens to an existing contact with the same email/userId – all critical for a contact-creation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the actual behavior. The trailing 'Formbricks v2: POST /management/contacts' is mild implementation detail that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke, but it is brief and not disruptive.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what a successful creation returns (contact id, etc.) but does not. For a 3-parameter tool with nested attributes and a destructiveHint annotation, the definition is adequate but leaves response and duplicate-handling behavior unspecified.

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 100%, so the required workspaceId, attributes, and optional environmentId are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'email and userId' examples echoes the schema's own attribute example rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 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 (Create) and resource (a contact) plus scope (in a workspace, from a set of attributes), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but since it is the only create-contact tool among its siblings, that omission is minor.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to invoke it versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. required auth/permissions), and no conditions under which it should not be used. Usage is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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