crm_batch_create_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention critical behaviors: whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's core function. It's appropriately sized for a simple declarative statement, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the complexity (batch mutation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address parameter semantics, behavioral traits, error handling, or output expectations. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured support, the description fails to provide adequate context.

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%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about the 'inputs' parameter—it doesn't explain the structure, required fields, constraints, or examples. For a complex nested parameter with multiple properties and associations, this leaves the agent with no semantic guidance beyond raw JSON schema.

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 ('Create multiple contacts') and resource ('contacts'), specifying it's a batch operation ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from individual creation tools like 'crm_create_contact' by emphasizing batch capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch tools like 'crm_batch_create_companies' or 'crm_batch_create_leads' beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when batch creation is preferred over individual creation, or how it differs from other batch tools like 'crm_batch_create_objects'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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