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

Annotations only declare write/open-world/non-idempotent; the description adds real behavioral facts the annotations cannot express: no email or messaging side effects, no built-in duplicate detection, and the shape of the return payload (status, message, new id in ImportingIntoId) in the absence of an output schema. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with a WRITE: marker, then side-effect exclusions, then the dedupe precondition, then return contract and endpoint — every sentence carries distinct information with 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 23-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, return values, and duplicate risk, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. It stops short of explaining partial creation, custom-field naming pitfalls, or how a minimal name-only create behaves.

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?

With 23 parameters and only 48% schema description coverage, the description needs to carry field semantics but says nothing about any of them — no guidance on custom_fields, subscribed enum, required-vs-optional usage, or the ~12 undocumented fields (city, state, gender, phones, emails, addresses). The only implicit hint is "person or organization" tying to name.

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 (person or organization)") and scopes it to the Revamp CRM account. It is clearly distinguishable from revampcrm_update_contact and revampcrm_list_contacts without opening either schema, and it names the exact endpoint (POST /Contacts/New).

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 an explicit precondition and alternative: "Search first (revampcrm_list_contacts with keyword/email) so you do not create a duplicate: this tool does not check." It also excludes an expected-but-absent behavior ("does not email or message the contact"), leaving nothing to inference about when and how to use it.

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