postgrid_create_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a contact is created; it does not mention what the response contains, whether address verification occurs, whether duplicates are allowed, or any side effects. The schema confirms addressLine1 is required, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds genuinely useful context about how contacts are used. Every word earns its place.

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 flat 12-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It does not state what happens after creation (e.g., whether the returned contact ID should be used as recipientId/senderId elsewhere), nor does it clarify any validation behavior. It is sufficient for basic selection but not fully complete for reliable invocation and follow-up.

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 all 12 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only a general notion that the contact needs a mailing address, which matches addressLine1/addressLine2/city/provinceOrState/postalOrZip/countryCode. With full schema coverage, this is an adequate but baseline contribution.

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 states a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('a contact in PostGrid'), and the key requirement ('with a mailing address'). It also clarifies the downstream purpose of contacts ('recipients or senders for letters and checks'), which distinguishes it from letter/cheque creation tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a contact to act as a recipient or sender for letters or checks. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over update_contact, list_contacts, or other contact-related siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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