Save a private work/collaboration proposal and open a private room with Andrew. No automatic quote or booking. Use a separate conversationKey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| brief | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| budget | No | ||
| timing | No | ||
| company | Yes | ||
| requestId | Yes | UUID v4. Retain and reuse for identical retries. | |
| conversationKey | Yes | 32 cryptographically random bytes as lowercase hex. Never use the owner key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it non-read-only, open-world, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real side-effect context the annotations cannot: it opens a private room and explicitly does NOT trigger an automatic quote or booking, and it warns to use a fresh conversationKey. It omits retry/requestId behavior and what the caller receives back.
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 with the action front-loaded, followed by the two most decision-relevant caveats (no booking, separate conversationKey). No filler, though the value of the "with Andrew" detail is marginal.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the core action and safety caveats but leaves the optional budget/timing fields and the post-submission outcome unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 only 25% (2 of 8 parameters documented), and 6 are required. The description only reinforces conversationKey handling and says nothing about name, email, company, brief, budget, or timing, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Specific verb+resource: it saves a proposal and opens a private room with Andrew. That is clearly distinguishable from the messaging/identity siblings. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer it over send_message or post_message, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by "Save a private work/collaboration proposal" and one constraint is given ("Use a separate conversationKey"), but there is no guidance on when this is appropriate versus the sibling messaging tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions beyond that one hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.