contact_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key requirement (alias credentials) and provides the CardDAV context, but it does not clarify side effects, permission needs beyond credentials, error behavior, or how the created contact relates to the alias. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 a single, clear sentence with two meaningful clauses. It conveys both the purpose and an essential prerequisite without redundancy, earning its place in the description.

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's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema) and the richness of the schema descriptions, the description offers only a minimal overview. It does not explain relationships between fields (e.g., when content is generated vs. provided), any expected response, or how this operation integrates with the alias's CardDAV context, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond stating that credentials are required, which is already present in the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 is explicit: 'Create a contact for an alias (CardDAV).' It identifies a specific verb (create), a resource (contact), and a context (alias, CardDAV), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like contact_update and contact_delete.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states a prerequisite ('Requires alias credentials') but does not mention when to prefer contact_create over contact_update or how to interact with associated operations. The usage is implied only by the tool's name.

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