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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying the side-effect boundary ('Nothing is sent to the person') and the consequence of non-idempotency ('creating the same email twice may create a duplicate'). It stops short of naming the endpoint requirement around permissions or the returned object.

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?

Extremely dense: a leading 'WRITE:' marker front-loads the operation type, followed by two short sentences and an endpoint tag. No sentence is padding and nothing important is buried.

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 7-param write tool whose annotations cover write/destructive/non-idempotent, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (no notification, duplicate risk) and the endpoint. With no output schema, it would be more complete if it indicated what is returned (e.g., the new contact id) for follow-up calls.

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 every one of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical field list (name, company, job title, emails, phones, custom fields) merely restates schema properties without adding format, default, or cardinality guidance.

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 contact in Helpwise') and enumerates the fields it accepts, plus the underlying endpoint POST /contacts. The verb alone cleanly separates it from siblings like helpwise_update_contact, helpwise_get_contact, and helpwise_list_contacts.

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?

Usage is implied by 'create a new contact' and the duplicate caveat hints at a pre-check, but the description never says when to use this vs. helpwise_update_contact or helpwise_search_contacts. No explicit prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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