Create contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeat-behavior are covered. The description adds that all fields are optional and that the created object is returned, but says nothing about duplicate handling, required identifiers (e.g. whether a contact without a name is meaningful), or side effects like address-book sync.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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 22-parameter creation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema descriptions, this definition is far too thin — it clarifies neither the field semantics nor the creation semantics (duplicates, defaults, minimum content).

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?

With 22 parameters at 5% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, yet it only says fields are optional. Non-obvious fields such as 'color', 'speeddial', 'blocked', 'tags', and the enum 'response_format' are never explained, so an agent must guess at semantics and formats.

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 and resource ('Create a new contact') and names the return ('the created contact object'), which separates it from placetel_update_contact and placetel_get_contact. It does not explicitly route against siblings like update_contact, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of when to prefer placetel_update_contact or placetel_get_contact instead. The only guidance is a field-level note ('any subset of contact fields'), not a usage context.

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