crm_create_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what validation entails, or what happens on failure. 'Validated properties' hints at some validation but doesn't explain what validation occurs or what errors might result. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new contact') and adds a qualifying phrase ('with validated properties'). Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient despite its limitations in 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and complex nested parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what errors might occur, what validation means, or how to properly structure the parameters. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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 for completely undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'validated properties' which loosely relates to the 'properties' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'properties' contains, what 'associations' does, or provide any guidance on parameter usage. With 2 parameters (one required) and complex nested structures, this minimal description is insufficient.

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 resource ('contact'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies 'new contact' and mentions 'validated properties', which adds some differentiation from generic creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like crm_batch_create_contacts or crm_create_lead, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools (including batch creation tools and other CRM entity creation tools), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with similar tools.

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