wealthbox.contacts.create

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 mentions the ability to provide a raw body, which is a useful behavioral hint, but it does not disclose output, potential errors, required fields, or side effects. The raw body capability is already described in the input schema, so the description adds limited transparency beyond structured data.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the purpose with 'Create contact' and immediately gives a practical example. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It only explains the simplest case (first/last name) and does not address any of the complexity, such as arrays of emails/phones/addresses, the use of type for Person/Company, or what the API returns. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool beyond trivial examples based on this description.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides a concrete example for first_name and last_name, which is helpful, but it does not clarify nested objects like tags, emails, phones, or addresses, nor does it explain how the raw body interacts with other parameters beyond what the schema already states. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 contact', which is a specific verb+resource action. The example with first_name and last_name clarifies the expected input, distinguishing it from sibling tools like contacts.update or contacts.delete.

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 relative to alternatives such as contacts.update or other create tools. It implies usage for creating a contact but does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which an alternative might be more appropriate.

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