ghl_create_contact_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the creation action itself. It does not mention required parameters, side effects, validation, or return values, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though extremely sparse, but no words are wasted.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about return behavior, required fields, and relationship to other task tools, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke effectively.

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 83% (5 of 6 params have descriptions), and the description adds no parameter information. As per the rubric, baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents most parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('task for a contact'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_update_contact_task and ghl_delete_contact_task. It is unambiguous and single-purpose.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites like the contact needing to exist or relationships to other task operations. Users must infer usage from the tool name.

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