Create Contact Person

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

Annotations already disclose the important traits: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description contributes only that a parent contact is required, and says nothing about failure modes, duplicate handling, or whether the new person becomes the main contact by default — all decided by parameters the description ignores.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first line "Create Contact Person" only repeats the tool title before the next sentence says the same thing again. That redundancy costs space that could have carried usage or behavior detail.

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?

This is a nested-object write operation supporting tenant-specific custom properties and a non-obvious duplicate-check mode, with no output schema to explain the response. For that complexity the description is too thin — it leaves the caller to rely entirely on the schema for the duplicate-check semantics and on nothing at all for what a successful create returns.

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 contactId, makeMainContactPerson, contactPersonEmailDuplicateCheckMode, and the custom-property extension are all fully documented in the schema itself. The description's only parameter claim ("The email address is required") merely restates the schema's required list, adding no new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Creates a new contact person") and adds a genuine scope qualifier: the person is created for an existing contact. That distinguishes it from create_contact and from update_contact_person implicitly, though it never names the sibling create_contact to make the boundary explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to use this rather than create_contact (which may accept embedded contact persons) or update_contact_person for an existing person. The only implied condition, that a parent contact must already exist, comes from the phrase "for an existing contact" rather than from an explicit prerequisite statement.

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