Create Contact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so it is known to be a mutating operation. The description adds value by disclosing that it creates a single contact, lists required fields, and notes the return format ('compact summary with the contact slug'). This goes beyond the annotation and helps set agent expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then required fields, resolution guidance, and return summary. No filler or repetitive content. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 22 parameters and an output schema, the description still manages to cover the essential aspects: what the tool does, required params, how to resolve the most easily-confused parameters, and the response format. The output schema covers return values, and the schema covers optional params, so the description is complete for this complexity level.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaningful semantic hints not present in the schema: it maps owner_id to list_users, company_slug to search_companies/list_companies, stage_id to list_contact_stages, and custom_fields to list_custom_fields. These resolution pointers help the agent correctly populate parameters, which is more than the schema's terse property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Creates one Recruit CRM contact.' It clearly distinguishes this create operation from sibling tools like create_candidate, create_job, or create_company. The mention of required fields further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 explicit resolution guidance: 'Resolve user IDs with list_users, company slugs with search_companies or list_companies, stage IDs with list_contact_stages, and custom field IDs with list_custom_fields.' This tells the agent which sibling tools to use for prerequisites. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g., for updates), but the context is clear.

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