crm_create_contact_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether this operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 5 required, creation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'contact property' is in this CRM context, doesn't cover parameter meanings, and provides no behavioral context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 11 parameters have explanations in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'contact property' means, what the required parameters represent, or how parameters like 'type' and 'fieldType' differ. This is inadequate for a complex tool with many parameters.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new contact property'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like crm_create_contact or crm_create_company_property by specifying it's for contact properties specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_create_lead_property or crm_create_company_property beyond the resource name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of batch operations (like crm_batch_create_objects), or how it relates to other property management tools (like crm_get_contact_properties). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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