create_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates a contact but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the response. For a 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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from scope. Every part earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 (a 9-parameter mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly in real-world scenarios.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying parameters cover 'personal and business information', but doesn't provide additional context like formatting examples (e.g., email_addresses as comma-separated) or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a new contact') and resource ('in Outlook'), specifying it includes 'personal and business information'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_contact' or 'delete_contact' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools (e.g., 'create_calendar').

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., Outlook access), compare to 'update_contact' for existing contacts, or explain why to choose this over other creation tools like 'create_event'. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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