create_contact

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the account-scoping semantic; it says nothing about duplicate-email behavior, whether the contact becomes immediately selectable as an owner, or that the password provisions a customer area — relevant for a mutation with these annotations.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the useful ownership context. No filler, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 9-required-parameter mutation at 40% schema coverage the description is too thin: no required-field guidance, no password/customer-area context, no indication of what happens on duplicate or conflicting data.

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?

With 10 parameters, 9 required, and only 40% schema description coverage, the description carries a compensation burden it does not meet — it mentions no fields at all. Required identity fields (firstname, lastname, address, postal, city) and the password semantics are left entirely to 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a contact') and adds meaningful scope: the contact is account-managed and usable as owner of domains and hostings. It clearly distinguishes the create action from siblings like get_contact, update_contact, and list_contacts, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., when to reuse an existing contact via list_contacts/get_contact instead of creating a new one). The phrase 'usable as owner of domains and hostings' hints at downstream context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right call.

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