create_contact

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious side effect (supplier_id triggers a Contact_Supplier link and adds a '_supplier_link' key to the result) and an input-format constraint (comment must be HTML, never Markdown). It doesn't mention auth requirements, failure modes, or duplicate handling, but the two disclosures are meaningful behavioral value beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a bulleted parameter legend that is easy to scan. Efficient for what it covers, though bullets are somewhat terse.

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?

A 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description discloses the key required param, the supplier-link side effect, and the comment format, but leaves most optional fields (address, phone, email, etc.) undocumented and says nothing about permissions or response beyond the '_supplier_link' key. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema names 14 parameters with no explanation. The description compensates partially by explaining name, contact_type_id, supplier_id, and comment, but leaves 10 parameters (fax, town, email, phone, mobile, phone2, address, country, postcode, firstname) undocumented. Marginal value added, not full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb (Crée) and resource (contact / personne-ressource chez un fournisseur) that clearly distinguishes it from update_contact and delete_contact in the sibling list. The parenthetical gloss on what a contact is adds useful specificity.

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?

Implies usage context through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'si fourni, le contact est rattaché'), but never explicitly says when to use this versus update_contact or how it relates to create_supplier in a workflow. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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