Create GoHighLevel Contact

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds the warning about live data, which is helpful, but does not disclose other behaviors like duplicate handling or side effects. Annotations carry the burden, so description adds moderate value.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and critical warning. No wasted words.

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 20 parameters, many undocumented, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It provides the core purpose and a live-data warning, but lacks guidance on required fields (though none are required) or typical usage patterns, leaving gaps in context.

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 description does not mention any parameters, despite the input schema having 20 parameters with only 20% description coverage. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so, adding no semantic value 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 clearly states it creates a contact using 'POST /contacts/', and is distinguished from siblings by being the create operation as opposed to ghl_get_contact, ghl_update_contact, etc.

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 explicitly warns against running on live data without approval, providing a key usage guideline. It implies this should be used for write operations, but does not explicitly differentiate from ghl_upsert_contact, which could create or update.

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