Create a CRM tag for customer segmentation and organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Tag name | |
| color | No | Optional display color, e.g. #2563eb |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description | |
| summary | Yes | One-line human-readable summary of the action | |
| renderType | Yes | UI rendering hint for the result |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnly=false) but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, uniqueness constraints, or required permissions. The phrase 'for customer segmentation and organization' is purpose-oriented, not behavioral.
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, front-loaded sentence: 'Create a CRM tag for customer segmentation and organization.' It is concise with no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score.
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 simple create operation with a detailed schema and output schema present, the description is sufficient. It does not elaborate on prerequisites or return values, but these are arguably covered by the schema and simple nature of the tool.
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 100%, with both 'name' and 'color' having explicit descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('CRM tag'), and adds context about customer segmentation and organization. It clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from related tools like attach_tags or create_segment.
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. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.