crm_create_contact_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires admin permissions, if properties are immediately available, potential side effects (e.g., affecting existing contacts), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is optimal - every word contributes directly to the purpose statement.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 5 required, mutation operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'contact property' is in this context, how it differs from regular contact fields, what the parameters mean, or what the tool returns. For a creation tool with this level of complexity, the description should provide much more context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 11 parameters have explanations in the schema. The description provides no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention any of the required fields (name, label, type, fieldType, groupName) or optional parameters. This leaves the agent with only parameter names and types to work with, which is insufficient for proper tool invocation.

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 ('new contact property'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'crm_create_contact' or 'crm_create_company_property' by specifying it's for contact properties. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'crm_create_lead_property' which has a similar structure but different target entity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when to choose batch operations (like 'crm_batch_create_objects'), or how this differs from similar property creation tools for companies or leads. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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