create_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and non-idempotency profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: no duplicate-handling behavior, no required-field consequences, no error or side-effect disclosure. For a create tool with 21 optional-looking fields, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core verb front-loaded and no wasted words. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but there is no filler or structural disorder to penalize.

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 21 parameters, no output schema, and no descriptions in the schema, a one-line description is far too thin — an agent cannot tell what a successful response contains or which of the optional fields are meaningful for each contact type. Completeness is adequate only for the basic create intent.

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% across 21 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it; only the type enum is hinted at via "organisation or person/individual". Nothing explains the distinction between name/firstname/lastname, the social fields, or whether vat_number/coc_number are organisation-only, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create a new contact") and clarifies the two contact kinds via "(organisation or person/individual)", which maps to the type enum. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_contact_people or update paths, but the create intent is unambiguous against those read-oriented 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do if the contact already exists. The only implied usage cue is the organisation/person choice, which comes from the parenthetical rather than from any stated rule.

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