create_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or return behavior. For a creation tool, the agent is left uninformed about what happens on success or failure, or whether this operation is reversible.

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, compact sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has five parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no additional context about expected return values, prerequisites, or edge cases (e.g., interaction between companyId and isCompany). With no annotations, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly in complex workflows.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the five parameters clearly.

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 the tool's action: 'Создать контакт (или компанию) в Planfix' (Create a contact (or company) in Planfix). This specifies a verb (create) and a resource (contact/company), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_contacts and update_contact. The mention of 'компанию' (company) adds useful scope not present in the tool name alone.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as update_contact or create_task. The usage context is implied only by the tool's purpose.

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