Create Contact

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write in an open world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful structural fact that a main contact person is created as part of the call, but it says nothing about duplicate-email rejection, permission/auth needs, or what happens if creation partially fails — the duplicate-email 409 behavior lives only in a nested schema field.

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 creation scope front-loaded and the pointer to contact-person management last. The opening line 'Create Contact.' merely restates the title and could be dropped, but the rest is tight.

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 mutation tool with a deeply nested body and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it tells you a main contact person is mandatory and additional ones are possible, which mirrors the required fields. It omits error/return behavior, so an agent cannot know what it gets back or how duplicate emails are handled without reading the schema.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and the single `body` parameter is an opaque wrapper, so the description does help by mapping its contents to contact / main contact person / additional contact persons. However, it adds no meaning for the duplicate-check flag or custom-property keys, which are explained only inside the schema itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new contact') and adds that it also creates a main contact person plus optional additional ones, which distinguishes it structurally from a plain single-object create. It does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling upsert_contact_by_email or create_contact_person, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use Contact Persons to manage contact persons and change the main contact person' implies a division of labor, but it points at a concept rather than naming the concrete siblings (create_contact_person, set_main_contact_person, update_contact). There is no guidance on when to create a new contact versus upsert by email, which is the most likely selection confusion.

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