attach_contact_to_deal

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the find-or-create behavior, the step-by-step flow, and backup details. It warns about the reverse order for undo, providing rich behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 structured with numbered steps and is reasonably concise. It conveys the multi-step process efficiently, though slightly verbose with backup details that could be summarized.

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 (find-or-create, linking, backup), the description covers the workflow and undo strategy. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases but is sufficient for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains the role of contact_email (search key), contact_name (required for creation), and company_name (optional for org). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though individual parameter descriptions would improve clarity.

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 tool finds or creates a person by email and optionally an organization by name, then links both to the deal. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like link_person_to_deal or create_person.

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 context on the combined operation and undo instructions but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over separate link/create tools. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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