clio_create_contact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this is a mutating operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: routing is confined to the governed connector authority, the 'effect' parameter is verified by Spring, and writes may resume via an approval_ref. These details help the agent understand governance and approval behavior beyond the bare annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a brief identity line, a governance note, then a flat bullet list of all seven arguments. There is no redundant prose or repeated schema information. The most important operational constraint (governed routing) is placed near the top, making the description easy to scan.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety traits, so the remaining burden is moderate. The description explains governance, idempotency, effect verification, and approval resumption, but it does not state what must be inside 'arguments' to create a Clio contact, nor does it clarify whether 'effect' should be set to 'write' for this operation. Given that all parameters are optional in the schema, the agent is left without guidance on the minimal required payload or invocation pattern.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides a one-line meaning for every parameter, including the opaque 'arguments' JSON string, project identification fields, idempotency key, effect claim, and approval reference. However, it does not explain what fields the 'arguments' JSON should contain to actually create a contact, leaving the core payload semantics underspecified.

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 identifies the tool as 'Clio connector operation create_contact' and gives its platform name, but it never explicitly states that it creates a contact in Clio. The purpose is largely carried by the tool name rather than the description, and no direct statement like 'creates a new contact' appears. It is not misleading, but it relies on inference from the name rather than clearly defining the operation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clio_get_contact, clio_list_contacts, or clio_update_contact (if available). The description focuses on routing and governance constraints ('Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority') but does not explain the decision process for selecting this tool or when it is not appropriate.

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