add_personAdd a household member to start splitting shared expenses with them, enabling voice-driven expense tracking and balance management.
Add someone to the household so expenses can be split with them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Their name | |
| also_called | No | Nicknames speech recognition might produce |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Add' which is consistent with a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, but it does not provide additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's function and purpose without any unnecessary words or digressions.
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 description fully covers the tool's primary purpose and the context of household expense splitting. While it does not mention edge cases or output details, the simplicity of the operation means the description is sufficiently 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?
The schema provides descriptions for both parameters (name: 'Their name', also_called: 'Nicknames speech recognition might produce'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 clearly states the specific action (Add) and the resource (someone to the household), along with the purpose (so expenses can be split with them). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_expense or show_balances.
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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you need to add a person to the household for expense splitting. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the use case is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.