contacts_create_or_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'requires approval', which adds context about a prerequisite, but lacks details on what 'approval' entails, how the tool behaves on creation versus update, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create or update a contact') and includes a critical note ('requires approval'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (mutation with approval requirement), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It hints at the approval process but doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral details, or usage context. The output schema may help with return values, but the description lacks sufficient guidance for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'requires approval', which loosely relates to approval_id, but doesn't clarify the purpose of name, email, company, or how approval_id is used. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the four parameters meaningfully.

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 verb ('create or update') and resource ('a contact'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like contacts_get and contacts_search by focusing on modification rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mutation tools like calendar_create_event or gmail_create_draft beyond the resource type.

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 minimal guidance with 'requires approval', hinting at a prerequisite but not explaining when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify scenarios for creation versus update, mention when to use approval_id, or compare with other contact-related tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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