Create correspondent

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive create operation. The description adds the practical risk of near-duplicates being hard to merge, which is helpful operational context, but it does not disclose error behavior, permission side effects, or return values. This is a fair extension of the annotations rather than a contradiction.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action minimally, and the second provides a high-value operational warning without redundancy.

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?

Given six parameters, nested permission objects, and no output schema, the description plus the richly documented schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The duplicate warning is important. It would be a 5 if it also described the returned object or duplicate-name error behavior.

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 parameters like match, owner, is_insensitive, set_permissions, and matching_algorithm. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear action and resource: 'Create a new correspondent.' It also positions the tool against its sibling CRUD operations by instructing the agent to check list_correspondents first, making the creation entry point unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent to run list_correspondents before creating and explains why: 'near-duplicate entries are hard to merge later.' This is useful when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of explicitly saying to use update_correspondent when a matching entry already exists.

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