create_contact

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with creation behavior. The description adds transparency by specifying that 'fields' is a JSON object and directing to list_fields for available keys. This goes beyond the annotation by detailing parameter usage.

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: three sentences that pack essential information. No filler or unnecessary details. Each sentence serves a purpose (action, parameter guidance, prerequisite).

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 6 parameters and 1 required, the description explains only the custom fields parameter and its prerequisite. With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. However, the purpose and behavior of other parameters (e.g., validation, defaults) are omitted, leaving the description slightly incomplete for a creation tool.

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 no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only explains the 'fields' parameter fully, leaving name, ddi, phone, email, and username undocumented. While the 'fields' guidance is helpful, the majority of parameters lack semantic context, necessitating higher compensation.

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 states 'Creates a contact' with a clear verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_deal or create_tag, the context of sibling names and the action itself make it clear. A more explicit statement of what constitutes a 'contact' might elevate to 5.

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 key guideline: 'Call list_fields first to discover available field keys.' This provides a clear prerequisite when using the 'fields' parameter. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_contact, but that omission is minor.

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