create_consulting_engagementCreate an engagement for an owned consulting client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| client_id | Yes | ||
| objective | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| external_ref | No | ||
| sales_deal_ref | No | ||
| target_end_date | No | ||
| accounting_run_ref | 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 is not readOnly and not destructive. Description adds minimal context ('owned consulting client'), but no further behavioral traits like required permissions or side effects.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words, but could be slightly expanded to include key usage hints without becoming verbose.
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?
With 9 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too brief to guide correct usage, even though an output schema exists.
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%, and the description provides no explanations for any of the 9 parameters, leaving agents to infer meaning from names alone.
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?
Description clearly states the action 'Create an engagement' and specifies the resource 'for an owned consulting client', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_consulting_client.
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, such as update_consulting_engagement or other creation tools. Missing when-not or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.