create_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral fact: email is required for deduplication, implying the system uses email to identify duplicates. However, it does not state what happens on duplicate email (e.g., update vs. error), whether the operation is idempotent, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second adds the most critical constraint (email required) and a helpful recommendation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not mention what the response will contain (e.g., the created contact object), error handling (e.g., duplicate email rejection), or any side effects. An agent calling this tool would lack information about return values and failure modes, making it inadequate for a create operation.

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 schema has zero description coverage (0%) for its 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains email's purpose (required for deduplication) and notes other fields are optional. It provides no additional meaning for phone, company, jobTitle, lastName, or firstName – their formats, typical values, or relationships are left undefined. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new HubSpot contact', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_contacts (search) and get_contact (retrieve). The purpose is unambiguous and the resource is specific, so an agent can easily identify this tool's role.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for new contacts while search_contacts is for finding existing ones, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The usage context is entirely implicit from the name and purpose.

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