Add a CRM contact

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

Annotations are neutral (no hints contradict). The description adds that contact IDs are unique within a company, which is useful. However, it does not disclose creation behavior (e.g., handling duplicates, side effects, or required permissions). With minimal annotation support, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. No redundancy or superfluous text. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it omits essential context such as the fact that 'project' is required and that company must already exist. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 only 17% (only 'company' has a description). The description lists field names but does not explain formats, constraints, or optionality. It adds little value beyond the schema for the 6 parameters.

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 action 'Add a contact', specifies the resource, and lists the key fields (name, email, role, phone). It also provides context ('to a company') and a behavioral note (unique IDs within company), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like 'add_company' or 'add_lead'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., company must exist) or conditions for use. The description implies usage but provides no situational context.

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