create_correspondent

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

Annotations indicate it is not readOnly, not idempotent, and not destructive, which is consistent with creation. However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., side effects, rate limits, or required permissions).

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it omits important information. It is not front-loaded with key details and fails to earn its place given the lack of value.

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 the tool's complexity (nested object, multiple optional fields), the description is incomplete. It does not mention the output schema, nor does it cover edge cases or required fields beyond what's in the schema.

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%, but the description does not explain the 'body' parameter or its nested fields (name, match, etc.). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new correspondent', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'update_correspondent' or 'bulk_edit_correspondents', missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 such as 'update_correspondent' or 'bulk_edit_correspondents'. The description lacks context-specific recommendations.

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