m365_contacts_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description's 'Create' is consistent. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., return value, duplication behavior, required permissions) beyond what annotations offer, but it does not contradict them either.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and quickly lists the major data categories, making efficient use of space.

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 35 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is rather minimal. It does not state what the tool returns after creation, nor whether any fields are required or how folders are handled. However, the schema itself contains many per-field descriptions, and the summary captures the tool's scope, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 49% (low), so the description should compensate. It provides a high-level summary of field categories (names, emails, phones, etc.), which helps orient the agent, but it does not explain nuances like convenience fields vs. complete-list behaviors or empty-array clearing semantics that appear in the schema. It adds moderate value without fully compensating for low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a contact'), and enumerates key field categories (names, emails, phones, categories, addresses, work/personal details), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like contacts_update, contacts_delete, and contacts_list.

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 verb 'Create' implies use for new contacts, and sibling tools like contacts_update signal the alternative for existing contacts. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or common patterns, so usage guidance is merely implied.

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