create_emergency_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only states 'mutation', implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate creation. The example variables are parameter-focused and do not clarify behavioral traits.

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 block of text with a header, mutation name, and a lengthy example. It is not exceptionally long, but the format is awkwardly crammed together and lacks separation between the purpose statement and example. The example is useful but could be presented more cleanly.

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?

The tool has an input object with nested fields, but the schema does not expose those fields. The example partially compensates, but the description does not explain required fields, error conditions, or the return value. No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what happens after creation, but it remains silent. This is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 describes both parameters, covering 100% of them, but the input description is merely the GraphQL type name and the customer_slug description is a header override. The description adds an example of the input structure, which provides additional context about nested fields, though many fields are empty or placeholders. Overall, the example adds some value beyond the bare 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 explicitly labels this as a mutation named 'createEmergencyContact', which clearly indicates the tool creates an emergency contact. The resource is specific, and it distinguishes from other tools by its unique operation name. However, it does not provide a plain-language explanation of what an emergency contact is or what creation entails.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_emergency_contact or delete_emergency_contact. No prerequisites, valid scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned. The only context is the GraphQL mutation name, which does not inform usage decisions.

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