freeagent_create_contact

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which adequately signals that this persists a new record and is not idempotent. The description adds the practical constraint about naming, but doesn't disclose duplicate behavior, permissions, or response shape. With the annotations in place, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The subject and resource are front-loaded, and the sentence sentence explains both the use cases and the most important optional-field constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 straightforward create operation with 13 optional params, the description covers the only non-obvious constraint (the naming rule) and leaves the rest to the full parameter schemas. The lack of an output schema and response details means the agent can't predict the exact returned object, but the description is still sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

All 13 parameters already have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description improves on that by clarifying the business grouping: either organisationName or firstName / lastName must be supplied (or both), and the contact is a client or supplier. This is semantic context not present in the parameter schemas.

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 names the exact verb and resource ('Create a contact in FreeAgent') and explains why the contact is being created — a client to invoice or a supplier to record bills against. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling tools like freeagent_create_invoice or freeagent_create_expense.

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?

By identifying the two business contexts that call for this tool — invoicing a client or recording bills against a supplier — the description gives an agent a clear trigger. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but there is no dedicated contact-creation sibling, so the context is sufficient.

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