samsara_create_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description only says 'Create a contact', which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose what happens on success, error conditions, idempotency, or whether this creates a standalone contact or requires association with an existing location. The mention of 'stop location' in parentheses is vague.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, which is concise. However, it is arguably too brief given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, and the fact that there are 5 parameters including a nested object. The brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the contact is used for beyond 'route management', how to use the parameters, or what the response looks like. It is complete enough for a simple CRUD tool but fails to clarify the relationship to stops or routes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the 5 parameters, including required 'firstName' or optional fields like 'email', 'phone', 'externalIds'. The term 'externalIds' is a nested object that could benefit from explanation. The description adds no parameter-level value.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'contact', and adds context that it's for route management. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'samsara_list_contacts' or 'samsara_create_route' by specifying the resource as a contact. However, it could be more specific about the relationship to routes (e.g., 'assign to a route' vs 'for route management').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for creating a contact independent of a route, or that it might be a prerequisite for creating a route. Sibling tools like 'samsara_create_route' or 'samsara_create_address' exist but no differentiation is given.

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