fcrm create contact

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the required capability, the SubscriberPolicy::verifyRequest enforcement, the mandatory local-confirmation gate, downstream side effects on other people, the no-retry policy, and the upsert-versus-error behavior of `__force_update`. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a destructive, non-idempotent write.

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?

Purpose and upsert behavior are front-loaded and efficient. The closing capability/policy block is dense and slightly awkward ("`fcrm_read_contacts` or `fcrm_manage_contacts` : which one applies depends on the action being performed"), a mild structural blemish on otherwise tight prose.

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 24-parameter, nested-object, destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: confirmation requirement, policy enforcement, duplicate-email behavior, opt-in email, and retry policy. Return values are unspecified but no output schema exists to anchor them, and the schema handles all field-level semantics.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every field. The description's notes on `__force_update` and double opt-in largely restate schema text ("instead of returning an error", "Send double opt-in confirmation email"), so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new contact") and clarifies the upsert branch via `__force_update`, which meaningfully distinguishes it from fcrm_update_contact. It never explicitly names the update sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Clear conditions are given: explicit local confirmation is required, hooks/announcements/automations may affect other people, and no retries. The `__force_update` condition and the `confirm` flag guidance add real routing help, but no alternative tool (e.g. fcrm_update_contact) is named for the modify-existing case.

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