oksign_upsert_contactsWRITE: add contacts to the account's contact list, or update them when a contact with the same email AND name exists (its other fields are replaced). Existing contacts are never cleared. Contacts OKsign rejects are skipped and reported. POST /v1/contacts/upload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contacts | Yes | Contacts to add or update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description explains exactly what is destroyed (a matching contact's other fields are replaced) and what is not (existing contacts are never cleared), which pre-empts a misreading of the hint. It also discloses partial-failure semantics — rejected contacts are skipped and reported — and the underlying endpoint.
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?
Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the WRITE marker and core behavior front-loaded. No restatement of the title and no 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 mutation tool with rich annotations, the description covers the semantics an agent most needs: upsert key, replacement scope, non-destruction of unrelated records, and partial-failure handling. Minor gaps remain around how skipped contacts are surfaced, since there is no output schema to explain the response.
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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds meaning the schema only hints at: the conjunction of email AND name as the match key and the consequence for the non-key fields (group, mobile, actingas) on a match. It does not discuss the per-call 1-200 contact bound, leaving that to the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('add contacts ... or update them') plus the exact match key ('same email AND name'), and labels itself WRITE up front. That is enough for an agent to separate it from oksign_list_contacts and oksign_remove_contacts without opening either schema.
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 update-vs-insert condition is spelled out precisely, and 'Existing contacts are never cleared' implicitly routes deletion to oksign_remove_contacts. It stops short of naming siblings or stating prerequisites/limits explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.
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.