Add a passenger or crew member to the FlashPass address book with personal, contact, and identity document details for eAPIS records.
Add a new person (passenger/crew) to the FlashPass address book.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Person fields; omit any you are not setting/changing |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that this is a write operation, but does not describe duplicate handling, required fields beyond the top-level fields object, permission requirements, or what the response contains.
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 with no wasted wording. It states the action, resource, scope, and domain context efficiently.
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?
The rich schema covers the nested person fields, and no output schema exists to explain. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is still thin on behavior such as duplicate detection, required identity fields, and response shape.
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%, so the nested field schema already documents the available properties and their formats. The description adds no additional meaning about the fields object or individual person attributes, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: adding a new person to the FlashPass address book, with the passenger/crew scope clarified. This clearly separates it from get_person, list_persons, and update_person, although it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 only guidance is implied by 'Add a new person.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer update_person instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions for creating a person.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.