create_contact

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden; it does add the meaningful auth requirement (`contacts:write` permission), which is genuine behavioral context. It omits what happens on duplicate email/phone conflicts, whether the call is idempotent, and what the response contains beyond the raw endpoint path.

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 body is short and the key constraint plus permission are front-loaded after a one-line purpose. The repeated header ('Create Contact' then 'Creates a contact') and the 'Tags: Contacts' / raw endpoint lines add minor noise without much selection value.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential permission gate and required-field rule but leaves the agent guessing about the return payload (e.g., created contact ID) and conflict/error behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so each of the six fields is already documented, including the email/phone cross-requirement. The description's restatement of that constraint adds emphasis but no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Creates a contact') and names the endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like update_contact or create_contact_note beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 precondition that either `email` or `phone_number` must be supplied is useful selection criteria, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., update_contact for existing records). Usage is only implied by the verb 'create'.

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