Зарегистрировать контакт

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and openness (openWorldHint=true). The description adds concrete behavioral details: optional creation/finding of an Account and support for Russian field names. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., idempotency issues) but sufficiently complements the annotations.

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 sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the core action; the second provides the key usage context (alternative to multiple calls) and a useful detail (field name flexibility). Efficient and front-loaded.

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 description covers the main functionality but lacks details on return value (no output schema), error handling, and precise behavior of the 'extra' parameter. Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, composite operation), more context on outcomes and edge cases would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that field names (in 'extra') can be in Russian or Latin, and that 'account_name' triggers account lookup/creation. This enriches the schema beyond mere parameter lists.

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 action ('зарегистрировать контакт') and explains the optional account creation/linking, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bpm_create_record that create a single record. The composite nature is explicit, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly compares this tool to a three-step alternative (create_record(Account)+create_record(Contact)+update_record), indicating when it should be used for combined operations. However, it does not specify when not to use it (e.g., for contacts without account linking) or provide explicit alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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