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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond them: that no notification email is sent to the owner, and the underlying POST /people endpoint. It stops short of describing what 'destructive' means in practice or side effects on duplicates.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE classification and the key precondition. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 15-param mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential minimum-input rule that the schema's zero required params leave ambiguous, plus the side-effect note about owner email. It is largely complete, though richer guidance on defaults (e.g., the type default) would help.

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 all 15 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the name/email requirement but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 lead or contact'), and the 'WRITE:' prefix flags the operation class. An agent can distinguish this from pipelinecrm_create_company or pipelinecrm_create_deal without opening any schema.

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 one concrete invocation precondition ('pass at least a first or last name or an email'), which is useful given zero required params. However, it offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance or routing to alternatives like pipelinecrm_update_person, leaving usage implied.

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