rm_create_client_contact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description's 'Add' matches the write nature of the tool. However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether client_id must reference an existing client, optional fields, or side effects), and does not contradict the 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 extremely concise—one short sentence with no filler. It is readable and front-loaded, but it is so spare that it borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks operational context: it doesn't explain that client_id identifies an existing client, which fields are required beyond what the schema shows, or how this differs from other client-contact tools. Given the tool's six parameters and related sibling operations, the description is not complete enough.

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 schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the six parameters (client_id, first_name, last_name, email, phone, title). It therefore adds no meaning beyond the raw property names and types, and does not compensate for the lack of schema 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 is a short declarative sentence specifying the action 'add' and the resource 'a contact for a client.' It aligns with the tool name and clearly separates it from create-tag or create-client operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. It is clear but not exceptional.

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 is given about when to choose this over related sibling tools such as rm_list_client_contacts or rm_delete_client_contact. The only usage context is implied by 'for a client,' which tells the agent the contact is associated with a client but does not set preconditions or mention alternatives.

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