create_contact

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Create contact or company' and does not mention permissions, validation rules, side effects, or response behavior. For a mutating operation, this is minimal transparency.

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, short sentence with no filler or unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. It is not as rich as it could be, but from a conciseness perspective it is efficient and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The rich input schema and presence of an output schema fill in many operational details, so the terse description is acceptable for a simple create operation. However, with 32 optional parameters and no annotations, the description still lacks high-level guidance on when to choose this tool over bulk import or how to structure a typical request, leaving 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all 32 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat field meanings. However, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers; it only implies the contact/company distinction, which is explicitly covered by the isCompany parameter.

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 action ('Создать' / create) and the resource ('контакт или компанию' / contact or company). It is specific enough to indicate the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like import_contacts or update_contact, so it falls short of a top score.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_contacts for bulk creation or update_contact for modifying existing records. The description only names the action and provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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