Create GHL Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the write and non-idempotent nature. The description adds useful context like 'locationId (uses default if omitted)' and 'Returns: Created contact object with ID', but does not disclose potential side effects like duplicate creation behavior beyond the annotation's idempotentHint.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear args list, and a return line. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, maintaining high readability.

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 create tool with 18 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies key fields, explains customFields structure, notes locationId's default, and states the return value. It lacks mention of prerequisites or limitations, but the annotations and schema cover the safety and parameter surface adequately.

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 56%, so the schema does not fully document all parameters. The description adds meaningful grouping for basic contact info and explains the customFields format ([{id, field_value}]) and locationId default behavior. However, it omits several schema parameters (e.g., name, city, dnd) and does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Create a new contact in GoHighLevel' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_update_contact and ghl_upsert_contact by explicitly focusing on creation.

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. It does not mention ghl_upsert_contact for create-or-update scenarios or ghl_update_contact for modifications, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the word 'Create'.

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