Upsert GoHighLevel Contact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a caution about live data, which is useful but does not disclose details such as what happens when a contact already exists (update behavior), error conditions, or confirmation of idempotency. The description is consistent with annotations (no contradiction).

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 sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and endpoint, the second adds an important safety warning. Every word earns its place. It is front-loaded and concise with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (20 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, low schema coverage) and the presence of sibling tools (create/update/delete contact), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain upsert behavior, required fields (e.g., email or phone for matching), how custom fields work, or the response format. The agent cannot fully understand how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 20% (only 4 out of 20 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description itself provides no parameter information whatsoever. It fails to add meaning beyond the input schema, leaving the agent with little guidance on how to use the 20 parameters effectively.

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 'Create or update a contact with POST /contacts/upsert', specifying the verb (create/update), resource (contact), and endpoint. It implies the upsert nature, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_create_contact and ghl_update_contact, which is a minor gap.

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 only guidance is a safety warning ('Write operation: do not run against live data without explicit approval'). There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information compared to siblings like ghl_create_contact or ghl_update_contact, and no prerequisites or context for choosing upsert over separate create/update calls.

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