create_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: no mention of required fields, authentication need, duplicate-detection/merge semantics, or what the call returns. For a mutation tool with 15 parameters this is a significant gap, though "create" at least conveys that state changes.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness, especially given the 15-parameter surface.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with a nested custom_field object, no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage, a single tautological sentence leaves the agent without nearly everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 40% and the description adds nothing about any parameter. The undocumented majority of fields (city, tags, email, state, country, job_title, numbers, etc.) rely on bare names/types, and even the required first_name is never mentioned in the description.

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?

"Create a new contact" gives an unambiguous verb (create) and resource (contact), so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces. It does not differentiate this from siblings like create_lead or create_account, or signal how it relates to update_contact, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required first_name), and no mention of alternatives such as update_contact or search_contacts for existing records. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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