vibo_create_event_contact

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation, the description adds that confirmation is required to proceed, and that without it a preview is returned. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover what happens after confirmation or error cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant information. 'Confirm-gated' is a compact and effective way to convey the behavior.

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 description covers the core action and the confirm/preview workflow, which is sufficient for a straightforward creation tool. It doesn't elaborate on post-confirmation response or duplicate handling, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 63% schema description coverage, the description summarizes the contact fields as 'name/email/phone' but does not clarify the split between firstName/lastName or phoneCode/phoneNumber. It reinforces the confirm parameter's behavior, but only partially compensates for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 tool's verb ('Add'), resource ('contact to an event'), and scope ('host or guest'). It differentiates from sibling tools like vibo_join_event or vibo_invite_users by specifying the contact role and contact fields (name/email/phone).

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 implies usage when a contact needs to be added to an event, and notably explains the confirm-gating flow ('Confirm-gated' and schema says without confirm returns a preview). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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