persons.create

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description reveals nothing about idempotency, validation rules, side effects, or return values. It does not indicate whether the operation is atomic or what happens if the person already 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 a single sentence of seven words with no redundancy, which technically meets conciseness standards. However, given the high complexity (14 parameters, nested objects), this brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication—the description is front-loaded but severely undersized for the tool's complexity.

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 complex creation tool with 14 parameters, 10 required fields, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks overview information about what constitutes a valid person record, ignores the nested document structure requirements, and provides no error context or reference to acceptable values for enumerated fields like 'gender' or 'businessRoles'.

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 0% schema description coverage across 14 parameters—including complex nested objects like 'address' (with duplicate line fields) and 'documents'—the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Beyond implying 'accountId' through 'business account', it provides no guidance on required fields, valid formats (e.g., dateOfBirth format), or the purpose of 'businessRoles'.

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 provides a clear verb ("Create"), resource ("Ryft person"), and scope ("for a business account"), which identifies the tool's basic function. However, it fails to explain what a 'person' represents in this context (e.g., beneficial owner, representative) or distinguish when to use this versus 'customers.create' or 'persons.update'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'persons.update', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that the business account must exist first). There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or workflow context provided.

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