create_payeeCreate a payee by name and return its new ID. Check resolve_name_to_id first to avoid duplicate payees.
Create a payee by name and return it with its new id. Check resolve_name_to_id first — creating a payee that already exists under a slightly different name is how duplicates appear in the first place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new payee. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds real value by noting the return payload and by warning that this operation is the origin of duplicate payees — a behavioral consequence beyond the annotation set.
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 sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the duplicate-avoidance caution. 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?
For a single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return value, and the key prerequisite (dedupe check). Safety semantics are handled by annotations, so nothing material is missing.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'name' fully. The description adds no format, length, or normalization detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (create) plus resource (payee), and it states what is returned (the payee with its new id). This cleanly separates it from siblings like update_payee, merge_payees, and list_payees.
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?
Explicitly directs the agent to call resolve_name_to_id first and explains the rationale (avoiding near-duplicate names). This is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it, which is exactly the strongest form of usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.