Create contact

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by stating 'Write', 'Executes directly', and the dedup behavior via headers. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage, though it omits details like authorization or rate limits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence conveys meaningful information. No redundancy or filler.

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 25-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core type selection, direct execution, and dedup behavior. It does not mention response format or error conditions, but given the tool's complexity, the provided context is solid.

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?

With only 32% schema coverage, the description compensates partially by grouping parameters by contact type (fflNumber, organizationName, firstName/lastName, premise address fields). It does not explain many other parameters like auditUser, businessType, or externalId, which remain unclear.

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 (Create), the resource (contact), and the three supported types (FFL, organization, individual). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_contact and merge_contacts by focusing on creation.

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?

Provides clear context on which parameters to use for each contact type, and notes that execution is direct (not an A&D record). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the type-specific field mapping is a strong usage hint.

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