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. It states 'Create' implying a write operation, but fails to mention critical traits: whether it requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, rate limits, or the response format. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new contact property'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data: no parameter explanations, no behavioral context, no output details. For a creation tool in a CRM context, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly without external knowledge.

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%, meaning none of the 11 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'name', 'label', 'type', or other fields mean, their relationships, or provide examples. This forces the agent to guess parameter purposes, which is inadequate for a tool with complex inputs like 'options' arrays and enums.

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 'Create a new contact property' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('contact property'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'contact property' entails (e.g., custom field in CRM) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'crm_create_company_property' or 'crm_create_lead_property', leaving ambiguity about the exact scope.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for existing properties), or how it differs from similar tools like 'crm_create_company_property'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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