Create contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a key behavior: if the phone number is already known, the tool returns the existing contact instead of creating or updating. It does not cover error behavior, permission requirements, or duplicate-matching normalization, which would be valuable for a mutation tool with no annotation context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and then a targeted parameter pointer. There is no filler, and every clause earns its place.

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?

Together the description and schema cover the required phoneNumber, phone-format rules, country ambiguity, duplicate behavior, and customFields key source. However, with no output schema, the description only partially explains return value (duplicate case) and says nothing about the success response shape or error conditions.

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 description adds real value beyond the schema by telling agents that custom/dynamic fields belong under customFields and pointing to gambot_get_contact_fields for the allowed keys. The schema already covers phone format, country handling, and default keys, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 concrete operation, 'Create a contact', and adds the non-obvious idempotency behavior of returning the existing contact when the phone is already known. It is unambiguous against get/update/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative such as gambot_update_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 implies creation usage and gives a valuable custom-field routing instruction with a cross-reference to gambot_get_contact_fields for valid keys. However, it does not state when to prefer this over gambot_update_contact or gambot_get_contact, so the usage boundary is implied rather than explicit.

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