create_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the Automation access requirement for Contacts, though it does not mention error behavior, duplicate handling, or rate limits.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words: the action and fields come first, followed by the side-effect and permission note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple create operation, the description covers the action, fields, side effect, and permission requirement; only duplicate-handling or failure semantics are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names all three parameters (given_name, family_name, organization), which is helpful, but it does not clarify that only `given_name` is required or explain field formats or constraints.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Create a contact") and names the fields it accepts (given/family name and organization). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `contacts` tool, which likely lists contacts, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 by saying it creates a contact and requires Automation access for Contacts. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as `contacts`.

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