volkern_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. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate data, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or system constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., 'cargo' only applies when 'tipo' is 'person'), nor does it provide examples or formatting guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), specifying it can be for a person or company. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'volkern_update_contact' by indicating creation rather than modification, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'volkern_create_lead' or 'volkern_create_deal'.

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 like 'volkern_create_lead' or 'volkern_create_deal', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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