Create and save a contact in Apple Contacts with optional labeled emails and phone numbers; it stops if Contacts has unsaved edits.
Create and save a contact, optionally with labeled emails and phone numbers. Refuses to run while Contacts has unsaved edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| emails | No | ||
| phones | No | ||
| jobTitle | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| firstName | Yes | ||
| organization | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavior — it refuses to run while Contacts has unsaved edits — but omits permissions requirements, duplicate-contact handling, and whether a newly created contact is returned.
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, with the core action front-loaded and the exceptional precondition second. Every clause adds 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?
For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials (it writes, it is not idempotent/destructive, it may fail on unsaved edits). However, with zero schema description coverage, an agent still lacks guidance on which fields matter and what happens on success or on duplicate creation.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only addresses labeled emails and phones, leaving firstName (the sole required field), lastName, note, jobTitle, and organization unmentioned, even though the schema structure itself (required, formats, defaults) is reasonably self-explanatory.
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+resource ('Create and save a contact') and indicates the optional payload shape (labeled emails and phone numbers). It is distinguishable from apple_contacts_search/get/update by the create verb, but it never names or contrasts with the closest sibling, apple_contacts_update.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use create vs apple_contacts_update or apple_contacts_add_to_group, and no alternatives are named. The only conditional statement is an operational precondition (unsaved edits), not a selection hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.