contactAdd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a contact profile is created and contact_id is returned, but does not mention side effects, required authentication, validation rules, or error behavior. For a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 short sentences plus a documentation link, with no filler or repetition. The core action and return value are front-loaded. The brevity is a strength, even though behavioral gaps are credited elsewhere.

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 18 parameters, 9 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more operational context, such as how the returned contact_id is used or what conditions must be satisfied for creation. It only states the action and return value, with a generic link to API reference. The link mitigates but does not make the description self-sufficient.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage, including descriptions for all 18 parameters and a clear required list. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, mentioning only the returned contact_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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 opens with 'Create a contact profile,' a specific verb plus resource that clearly defines the operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like contactUpdate, contactDelete, contactList, and contactDomainAssociate, which all imply different actions. Mentioning the return of contact_id further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, such as using contactUpdate for modifying an existing profile or contactList for retrieval. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create' and the tool name.

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