create_consulting_clientCreate an account-private consulting client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| contact_name | No | ||
| external_ref | No | ||
| organization | No | ||
| contact_email | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it's a write (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'account-private' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or error conditions.
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 short sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks necessary details about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than efficiently compact.
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 (7 parameters, many optional, output schema exists), the description is vastly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters, success criteria, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_consulting_engagement'.
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, the description must compensate but does not. No parameters are mentioned or explained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill in the 7 fields beyond the input schema.
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') and the resource ('consulting client'), and the 'account-private' qualifier hints at scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the 'update_consulting_client' sibling, but the verb alone makes it a distinct creation tool.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for creating vs. updating clients, or vs. creating engagements). No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.