gorelo_create_contact

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must add value, and it does by disclosing the 'temporary contact' fallback when no client is supplied. It does not cover failure modes (duplicate emails), permission requirements, or what is returned on success.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the primary behavior and appending the branching condition immediately after.

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 mutation with a deeply nested body and no output schema, the description covers the core branching but leaves an agent guessing about the response payload (e.g. created contact ID) and about validation behavior. Adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% and each body field is fully documented, so baseline is 3. The description goes one step further by explaining the semantic consequence of omitting the optional ClientId (creates a temporary contact), which the schema itself does not state.

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 (creates) and resource (contact) plus the scope variant 'under a client, or temporary'. This naturally separates it from gorelo_update_contact and gorelo_get_contact, though it never names a sibling 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?

The client/no-client branch is an implicit usage condition, telling the agent which mode to pick based on whether a ClientId exists. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer create vs update, or prerequisites such as required permissions.

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