Create a person

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only mutation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and the requirement for an explicit write opt-in. This sets accurate expectations about side effects and authorization without contradicting the 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 front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, then provides the body field list, documentation link, and safety requirements in a compact format. The field list is somewhat long, but each part earns its place by informing the agent about payload, authorization, and side effects.

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 complex mutating API call with no output schema, the description provides the endpoint, key body fields, a reference link, and critical operational warnings. It could go further by noting required body subfields or a sample payload, but the included context is sufficient for a cautious agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is high and the schema documents body, query, and confirm parameters. The description adds value by enumerating the accepted body field names (externalKey, firstName, roles, etc.) and explicitly restating the confirm:true requirement, which is useful because the body schema is a generic recursive JSON type rather than a detailed structure.

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 states an explicit action ('Create a person'), names the exact API endpoint, and clearly distinguishes this mutation tool from the many related person tools like get_a_person, modify_a_person, and delete_a_person. The resource and intent are unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for creating a person and even specifies required preconditions: operator write opt-in and confirm:true. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is concrete enough that an agent can determine when to use it.

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