vibo_create_event_contact

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

The description adds the confirm-gated behavior (must confirm to proceed), which goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose other behaviors like what happens on duplicate email, authorization needs, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and a key behavioral trait. No redundant information, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the action and the confirm gating but omits details like required parameters, role enumeration, and return behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 63%, so the description carries some burden. It mentions name/email/phone but does not clarify mapping to parameters (firstName, lastName, phoneCode, phoneNumber) or the confirm gating beyond what the schema states. Adds little value.

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 the action 'Add a contact (host or guest) to an event' with specific parameters (name/email/phone), clearly conveying the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vibo_invite_users, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the only hint is 'Confirm-gated,' which is a behavioral note rather than usage context. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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