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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that all fields are optional and that firstName/lastName are combined into a nested name object. It also discloses the underlying REST method and path. While it does not discuss error conditions or permissions, it provides useful transformation details.

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?

The description is three short sentences front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words and includes only essential information: the action, the field optionality, a key transformation, and the REST endpoint.

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 tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the endpoint and the name combining behavior. It does not describe what the creation response contains, but the absence of an output schema lowers that expectation. The schema covers the parameter details.

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%, with each parameter already described in detail, including mapping conventions like 'xUrl sent as xLink:{primaryLinkUrl}'. The description's note that all fields are optional is also implicit in the schema (no required parameters). Thus the description adds minimal new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description opens with 'Create a new person (contact)', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_company or create_note. It also includes the REST endpoint, reinforcing the precise action.

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 context is clear: this tool is for creating a person. Sibling tools target different entities (company, note, etc.), so the resource name makes the usage context obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would warrant a 5.

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