Start a local sponsorship research mission with a set budget in USD, without triggering research or AI calls. Define the mission name and budget to prepare for later contact discovery and email verification.
Create a local sponsorship research mission with an explicit Monid budget. Performs no research or AI call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| budgetUsd | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by clarifying the operation is 'local' and performs no research or AI call, which communicates scope and side-effects beyond the structured fields. It could further state whether it returns a mission ID or persists immediately, but the essential behavior is clear.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a crucial behavior clarification. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 simple create-mission nature and two required parameters, the description covers the core behavior and its boundaries. It does not describe the return value or failure modes, but with no output schema and a straightforward operation, the coverage is reasonably complete.
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?
Parameter schema coverage is effectively zero, and the description only hints at 'budget' without explaining the required 'name' or the exact meaning/limits of budgetUsd beyond the schema. This leaves the agent to infer param semantics from field 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly defines the resource ('a local sponsorship research mission') plus the key constraint ('explicit Monid budget'). It distinguishes itself from read-only siblings by noting it performs no research or AI call.
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 gives implicit usage context: use this when creating a mission rather than executing research itself. However, it does not name any alternative tools or state concrete conditions for when to prefer this tool over siblings like vectis_search_web or vectis_find_email.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.