vibo_create_event_contact

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

The description adds the behavioral signal that the operation is 'confirm-gated,' meaning a preview is returned unless confirmation is provided. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by implying a two-phase write flow. However, it does not explain what the preview contains, what happens on duplicate contacts, or other side effects.

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, densely informative sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the 'Confirm-gated' note is a compact, high-value behavioral qualifier placed at the end.

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 essential call path is covered: required eventId, role, email, and confirmation behavior are all inferable or stated. But with no output schema and no mention of what a preview returns or how optional name/phone fields behave, the description leaves some gaps for an agent executing a complete workflow.

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 description maps 'name/email/phone' and 'host or guest' to the relevant schema fields, providing some cohesion across the 8 parameters. However, schema coverage is 63%, and the description does not compensate for undocumented fields like firstName, lastName, and phoneNumber, nor does it clarify optionality beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb and resource: adding a contact to an event, with roles (host or guest) and fields (name/email/phone) enumerated. It is distinct from sibling tools like invite_users or remove_user because it focuses on adding a named contact to an event with confirmation gating.

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 usage context is implied: use this when adding a host/guest contact with their details. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as vibo_invite_users, nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use this tool. The confirm-gated note gives some procedural guidance but no comparative direction.

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