dex_create_contact

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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate contacts. It lists supported fields but doesn't explain behavioral aspects like whether all fields are optional or if there are validation rules.

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 efficiently structured as a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and enumerates supported fields. While comprehensive, it could be more front-loaded by emphasizing the core action before listing fields.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter structure, the description is moderately complete. It covers what fields are supported but lacks information about required fields, response format, error handling, and behavioral constraints that would be important for proper tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a complex nested object), the description adds significant value by listing the supported fields: name, company, job title, emails, phone numbers, social profiles, addresses, custom fields, group/tag associations. This provides semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain field formats or constraints.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'contact', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dex_update_contact' by specifying creation rather than modification, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'dex_create_group' or 'dex_create_tag'.

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, when to choose this over 'dex_update_contact' for existing contacts, or how it relates to sibling creation tools like 'dex_create_group' or 'dex_create_tag'.

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