start_householdCreate a shared expense ledger and add yourself as the first member.
Create a shared ledger and put the speaker in it as the first member.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | What to call it, e.g. 'Apartment 4B' or 'Tahoe trip' | |
| currency | No | ISO code, e.g. USD, EUR, GBP | USD |
| your_name | No | The speaker's own name | Me |
| 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description confirms it creates a new ledger and adds the speaker, adding the 'first member' detail beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose idempotency (what happens if called twice) or any error conditions, so it adds only modest context.
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: 'Create a shared ledger and put the speaker in it as the first member.' It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff or redundant information.
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 tool has an output schema (so return values are covered elsewhere) and a clear action. The description fully explains what the tool does. It does not mention that this is typically the first step in using the household ledger or that calling it again might create another household, but these are inferable from the name and siblings. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a creation tool.
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%: all three parameters (name, currency, your_name) have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is 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 ('Create') and resource ('shared ledger'), and clarifies that the speaker becomes the first member. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like record_expense, show_balances, etc., which handle other aspects of the ledger.
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 implies usage for initial setup by describing creation of a new ledger and adding the speaker, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_person, nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., if a household already exists). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.