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

Adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by warning 'Workflow automations may fire', which is a genuine side effect an agent should know before writing. The destructiveHint=true annotation is not contradicted, though the description doesn't discuss idempotency or duplicate handling.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, field constraint, required workflow/status plus prerequisite, then side effect and endpoint. Slightly redundant first sentence repeats the title, but there is little waste.

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 23-parameter mutation with a nested custom_fields object and no output schema, it covers the essentials: required fields, the cross-field rule, the settings prerequisite, and side effects. It could note identifier return behavior, but with no output schema that is not required.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a cross-field constraint absent from the schema: at least one of first_name, last_name, display_name or company. The workflow/status matching rule also adds semantics the minLength-only schema fields don't convey.

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+resource ('Create a contact') and immediately names the domain-specific fields it operates on, cleanly distinguishing it from siblings like jobnimbus_create_job, _create_note and _create_task.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite: record_type_name and status_name 'must match the account settings (jobnimbus_get_account_settings)', routing the agent to the lookup tool first. It does not, however, say when to use this versus jobnimbus_update_contact for an existing contact.

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