Создать контактное лицо (директор и т.п.)

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

The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds real value by disclosing the dry-run default and the confirm=true gate — an agent would otherwise assume an immediate write. It also surfaces the makeMain side effect, though it does not say what happens to the previously main contact.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the dry-run/confirm rule placed last as the operational caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose and the preview/confirm workflow, which it does. The remaining gap is the effect of makeMain on an existing primary contact and whether a database must be specified, both minor against the rich structured fields.

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 100%, so every parameter including confirm, operationId and database is already documented in the schema. The description only restates ФИО + должность and makeMain, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Заводит контактное лицо контрагента') and enumerates the role examples (директор, бухгалтер, менеджер) plus the fields captured (ФИО + должность). It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_counterparty by scoping to a contact person of an existing counterparty, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It states the invocation mode clearly ('По умолчанию dry-run; создание — при confirm=true'), which tells the agent how to execute safely. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus create_bank_account or update_counterparty, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an ownerRef from find_counterparty) are mentioned in the description itself.

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