keel_upsert_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well. It discloses idempotency, the 'created' response field, and the significant edge case that IdP-synced people are not updated. This goes well beyond a bare verb+resource statement.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the idempotency and identity-provider behavior are stated efficiently.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers behavior, idempotency, and a key edge case. It loses a point because several parameters receive no description-level guidance, leaving agents to rely on parameter names and the enum values.

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 only 29%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the five undocumented parameters. Only email identity-key behavior is implied by the prose. The remaining parameters have self-evident names but the description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Add a person to the workspace directory, or update them if the email already exists') tied to a clear resource and an upsert semantic. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like keel_list_people.

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 makes clear when to use the tool: to add a person or update an existing manually-created person. It also gives an explicit when-not: records synced from an identity provider are returned unchanged. It does not name an alternative tool, but none is obviously needed among the siblings.

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