create_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool creates a contact, but fails to disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or whether it returns the created object. The absence of such details makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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, with two sentences and a code block. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes only essential details without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 13 parameters, an output schema exists, and there are many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the full set of parameters, return values (though output schema covers it), error cases, or prerequisites like authentication. The mention of list_contact_stages is helpful but insufficient for a comprehensive understanding.

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 description coverage is 0% (13 parameters, none described in schema). The description adds meaning for only 4 of 13 parameters: it identifies first_name and last_name as required (already in schema), explains company_slug as comma-separated for multi-company, and suggests using list_contact_stages for stage_id. It ignores the remaining 9 parameters, leaving their purpose unclear.

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 that the tool creates a contact via POST /v1/contacts, specifying the HTTP method and resource. The verb 'Create' matches the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like update_contact or get_contact.

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 indicates that first_name and last_name are required, and provides guidance on using list_contact_stages to resolve stage_id. It informs about company_slug accepting comma-separated values for multi-company associations, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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