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

Adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect that annotations don't cover: Wild Apricot may create a membership invoice unless recreate_invoice=false. The destructiveHint annotation signals mutation risk, and the description complements it with the billing consequence. No contradiction with the annotation.

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 the core action and conditions in short declarative sentences; every sentence carries information. The trailing 'Wild Apricot: POST /accounts/{accountId}/contacts' line is the one piece of low-value filler, keeping it from a 5.

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 9-parameter create tool with no output schema and no required fields, the description covers the member workflow, custom fields, and the invoice side effect. It does not describe the created-record response or error cases, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 cross-parameter semantics the schema lacks: field_values is the custom-field channel, membership_enabled must be paired with membership_level_id, and recreate_invoice defaults to true server-side.

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 contact') and immediately disambiguates the two variants (plain contact vs. member). The sibling wildapricot_update_contact is implicitly distinguished by the create verb, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 clear conditional instruction for the member path ('set membership_enabled=true and membership_level_id'), and points to wildapricot_list_contact_fields / wildapricot_list_membership_levels for the required IDs. No explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to use update_contact instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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