create_person

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. It does reveal that the tool creates a new record (mutation operation) and specifies the return value ('Returns the created person record including the new record_id'). However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with duplicate entries.

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 perfectly sized at three sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical constraints, and ends with the return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information for tool selection and invocation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essentials: purpose, constraints, and return value. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential side effects (like auto-creation of new tags mentioned in the schema) and error scenarios. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate for some gaps.

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 already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the logical constraint that 'you need either a name or email to identify the person' and clarifying that 'All fields are optional' except for this constraint. This provides important semantic context beyond the schema's technical documentation.

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 specific action ('Create a new person in Attio CRM'), identifies the resource ('person'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_company' or 'create_note' by specifying it's for person records. It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining what the tool actually does.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Create a new person') and includes important prerequisites ('You must provide at least one name field or at least one email address'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_person' for existing records.

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