create_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool's action ('create a new contact') and adds no context about permissions, side effects, or return values. It does not mention that this is a mutation or what happens after 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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core purpose.

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 tool is a simple create operation with a well-documented schema, but the description lacks guidance on when to use it, what it returns (no output schema), and any prerequisites like linking to a third party. These gaps make it minimally adequate but incomplete for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and explanations (e.g., socid is 'ID du tiers…'). The description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the work.

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 'Créer un nouveau contact individuel' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (individual contact), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_thirdparty (which creates a company). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives—for example, it doesn't clarify that this is for individual persons vs. companies (create_thirdparty). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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