Create Contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state permission requirements, what happens on duplicate email/tax_id, whether tax_id is validated, or whether creation is idempotent — significant gaps for a mutation tool whose sibling validate_tax_id exists.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with zero filler. Every clause contributes.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It conveys what is created and its downstream use, but omits permissions, failure modes, and any hint of the returned identifier an agent would need to reference the contact later.

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 every parameter (including the kind enum and the first_name-as-company-name nuance) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a new contact') and clarifies the scope with '(customer or company)'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_invoice, though the mention that contacts are referenced when creating invoices gives a loose relational cue.

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 second sentence implies the tool is used when you need a contact to later attach to invoices, which gives implied context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among siblings.

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