create-contact-in-folder

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

The description adds context about behavior by specifying it creates contacts in specific folders and points out the need for a folder id. Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description complements them with scope. It does not mention confirmation gate or error handling, but those are covered in the schema's confirm parameter.

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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a separate tip block for additional guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses a clear, scannable structure with an emoji. Minimal waste, though the tip could be slightly more compact.

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?

The tool is complex with nested body objects and response-handling parameters (includeHeaders, excludeResponse), yet the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., the created contact object). It covers main usage but omits failure conditions and output details. The schema covers parameters, but the description could be more complete about the response.

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?

The description gives an example body structure but largely duplicates the schema's detailed property descriptions. It adds the hint to use the 'id' field for contactFolderId, which is also in the schema. Given high schema coverage (80%), the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a contact to the root Contacts folder or to the contacts endpoint of another contact folder.' It also names the sibling create-outlook-contact and distinguishes this tool from it, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool: 'The existing create-outlook-contact (POST /me/contacts) writes to the default folder only; use this when organizing contacts into named folders.' It also instructs to get the folder id via list-contact-folders, providing a complete usage path.

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