outlook_create_contact

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic creation action. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., if duplicates are allowed), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success or failure. The description bears the full burden for a mutation tool but adds minimal behavioral context.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. However, it is too brief to be informative; additional sentences could improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 6 parameters with no descriptions, and a complex set of sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or whether the contact is created in a default folder, leaving an agent underinformed.

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, so the description must compensate. It lists the optional fields (email, phone, company, title) and mentions 'name' (covering first_name and last_name), but does not provide any constraints, formats, or examples. The value added over the raw schema is small.

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 creates a new contact with name and optional fields (email, phone, company, title). It distinguishes from sibling tools like outlook_update_contact by the verb 'create'. However, it does not specify that only first_name is required, while 'name' implies both first and last, which is slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing Outlook account, nor does it differentiate from related tools like outlook_update_contact or outlook_get_contact.

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