accelo_create_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral trait: the automatic affiliation creation. Beyond that it is silent on permissions, whether an existing affiliation is duplicated, and failure behavior for an invalid company_id.

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 one-sentence summary is front-loaded and carries the key side effect; the Args block is terse and each line adds a distinct semantic. Some repetition of parameter names is unavoidable given the schema has no descriptions.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers inputs and the affiliation side effect adequately, but says nothing about what is returned (the new contact ID) or how errors/invalid company_id are handled.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: it glosses all nine parameters and clarifies the ambiguous 'title' as an honorific (Mr, Ms) versus 'position' as the job title. Only 'fields' stays opaque ('Additional fields to return').

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create a new contact') and adds a meaningful qualifier: the call also creates an affiliation to the company. That side effect distinguishes it from accelo_create_affiliation and tells the agent it does not need a second call, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance. The agent gets no instruction on when to prefer this over accelo_create_affiliation plus a separate contact creation, or what preconditions (e.g. an existing company_id) must hold.

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