Add contact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little behavioral context. It doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or the meaning of openWorldHint. The sentence about params is more about input structure than behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences totaling 9 words. The first sentence states the action; the second hints at the input structure. While every sentence earns its place, the second is largely redundant with the schema, reducing its value slightly.

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 tool has an opaque params object with no field documentation, no output schema, and no explanation of required fields or expected behavior. The description and annotations provide minimal context, leaving the agent unable to know how to construct a valid request without external API documentation. This is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 single 'params' parameter has a schema description ('Object of fields passed to Smart NPV as documented in its API.'), giving 100% coverage. The description's 'Fields go inside params' reinforces this schema but doesn't add new semantics, such as which specific fields are allowed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add a contact,' which is a clear verb+resource action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_contacts and add_contact_group by the resource type, but it doesn't explicitly call out the distinction. The added sentence about params is more about parameter handling than purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'Fields go inside params,' which is a parameter-structuring note, not a usage context. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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