autotask_create_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate contacts, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in communicating the core purpose.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error conditions, nor does it explain what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this mutation tool remains 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%, with all 6 parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 resource ('new contact in Autotask'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'create' siblings like autotask_create_company or autotask_create_ticket, which would require mentioning what specifically distinguishes contact creation from other entity creations.

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. With many sibling tools including autotask_search_contacts, there's no indication of when to create versus search, or prerequisites like needing a valid companyID. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage information.

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