POST /person (Person)

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by detailing the expected payload structure with a full example, though it does not discuss side effects, authentication, or rate limits.

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 lengthy due to the full example, which is necessary for schema coverage. However, it could be more concise by summarizing key parameters upfront. The structure is clear but not optimally compact.

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 high complexity (many nested fields) and lack of output schema, the description provides a solid example but omits return value details (e.g., what is returned on success) and error handling. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema is minimal, only defining a 'body' object with no internal properties. The description fully compensates by providing an extensive example with all fields, nested objects, and comments, essentially documenting the parameters that the schema omits.

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 it creates a person associated with a client in the Conexa system. The verb 'Criação' and resource 'pessoa' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_customer' and 'create_potential_customer'.

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 includes a warning about unnecessary fields depending on the product, providing context-sensitive guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_person' or 'create_customer'.

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