Upsert GHL Contact

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it matches by email/phone and decides to update or create. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence of 21 words, immediately conveying the core behavior without any filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose and update/create logic, but lacks details about parameter meanings, return value, error scenarios, or matching precedence when both email and phone are provided. With no output schema and multiple sibling write tools, more context would be expected for a complete understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 9 undocumented parameters. It only hints that 'email' and 'phone' are matching keys, but does not explain the other parameters (firstName, lastName, tags, source, customFields, etc.). This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Create or update a contact by email/phone. If a match is found, updates; otherwise creates new.' This uses a specific verb (upsert) and resource (contact), and explains the matching logic, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_create_contact and ghl_update_contact.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you want to create or update a contact without knowing if it already exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the upsert behavior is clear. A more explicit mention of 'use instead of create/update when unsure' would elevate this to a 5.

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