octav_add_bundle_addressAdds an existing address-book address to a bundle and returns the updated bundle (costs 1 credit).
Add one address to a bundle. The address must already be in the address book. Returns the updated bundle. Costs 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Address to add. Must already be in the address book. | |
| bundleId | Yes | Bundle id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the address-book prerequisite, the fact that the updated bundle is returned, and a cost of 1 credit — billing/rate information the agent cannot get from structured fields.
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?
Four short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precondition, return, and cost in priority order. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by saying the updated bundle is returned. Combined with the precondition and cost note, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the failure mode for an address not in the address book is left implicit.
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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema already. The description only restates the address precondition and adds no format, ID convention, or validation detail; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.
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 one address to a bundle'), which is clearly distinct from sibling operations like octav_remove_bundle_address and octav_add_address_book_entries. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it sits just below the top mark.
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?
Gives a concrete prerequisite: the address must already exist in the address book. It does not state when to use this versus removing/replacing bundle addresses or how to first add an address book entry, but the usage condition is clear enough to act on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.