Create Person

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) with open-world behavior (openWorldHint: true), non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('newly created person record with its assigned ID') and error behavior ('Returns "Error: ..." if validation fails'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter list, and return/error information. It is front-loaded and efficiently organized, though the parameter section could be more concise given the schema already covers these details. Every sentence adds value, but there is minor 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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, write operation) and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the action, parameters, return value, and error handling. However, it could improve by addressing potential side effects or integration with sibling tools, making it nearly complete but with minor gaps.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., formats, enums, defaults). The description repeats some parameter details (e.g., birthdate format, gender options, status default) but adds minimal extra semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline for high 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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new person record') and target resource ('in Planning Center People'), using a distinct verb that differentiates it from sibling tools like pco_get_person, pco_list_people, and pco_update_person. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 implies usage through its title and parameter details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pco_update_person or pco_list_people. It provides basic context (creating a new record) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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