create_correspondent

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds that matching pattern and algorithm enable automatic document assignment, a useful behavioral clue. However, it does not disclose permissions, duplicate behavior, or side effects beyond creation.

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, front-loaded sentence. It communicates the core action and optional configuration without redundancy or filler.

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 4 flat parameters, one required, and an enum described in schema, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and no description of return value, duplicate handling, or whether match is required when matching_algorithm is nonzero, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking this tool.

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 coverage is 50% because name and match lack descriptions, while is_insensitive and matching_algorithm have descriptions. The description adds meaning by linking 'matching pattern and algorithm' to the purpose of automatic document assignment, but it does not explain the match parameter's format or how it interacts with the algorithm beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('new correspondent'), and the optional matching features. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_correspondent, delete_correspondent, and list_correspondents.

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 when to use the tool—when creating a new correspondent—but does not explicitly contrast it with update_correspondent or edit_correspondents_bulk. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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