contact_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation via 'WRITE:' and surfaces the German address requirement. However, it does not cover side effects, validation failures, or the fact that ROLE is also an accepted type.

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 with the action front-loaded ('WRITE: create...'). No filler or redundant content.

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 10 parameters, 8 required, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It provides one useful domain rule but does not give enough context about parameter relationships, the ROLE type, or what a successful creation entails.

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 only 30%, so the description must compensate, but it adds little field-level meaning. It mentions ORG/PERSON and the German address requirement, but most required parameters like name, street, city, pc, voice, and email are left unexplained in both the schema and description. The exclusion of ROLE is also misleading relative to the schema.

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 and resource: 'create a contact handle (ORG or PERSON)', which clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like contact_list and contact_info. However, it omits the ROLE enum value that the schema permits, slightly narrowing the tool's actual capability.

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 'WRITE:' prefix and 'create' verb imply this is the creation operation among the contact tools, and the .de condition adds a concrete prerequisite. But there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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