create_person

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

No annotations are provided (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires authentication, whether it's idempotent, what happens if a person with the same name/email already exists, or whether it triggers any side effects. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency 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 a single efficient sentence: 'Create a new person/contact in RogerRoger'. It's appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains zero filler, and every word earns its place. Minimalist but not under-specified at the purpose level.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the basic purpose. It doesn't describe the expected return value (e.g., created person object with ID), any validation rules, how duplicates are handled, or permission/auth requirements. While the schema documents the 5 parameters adequately, the overall contextual picture for a create operation is incomplete.

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 100% and the schema descriptions (name, email, notes, phone, company) are self-evident — each parameter has a clear one-line description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully covers all 5 parameters. However, the description doesn't indicate which (if any) fields are essential, since there are 0 required parameters.

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 'Create a new person/contact in RogerRoger' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('person/contact') and places it in the context of the RogerRoger system. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_person, update_person, and delete_person based on the verb. However, it doesn't elaborate on what fields are essential or any constraints, so it's clear but not maximally specific.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from create_task, create_organization, create_list, or create_tag. The sibling tools like update_person suggest an obvious companion use case, but this is only implied. The description provides no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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