Create and save a new Contacts group by name; refuses to proceed if Contacts has unsaved edits, preventing data loss or conflicts.
Create and save a Contacts group. Refuses pending unsaved Contacts edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the safety burden is largely carried. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: the call will fail if there are pending unsaved Contacts edits, which an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing 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 simple single-parameter create tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits name-related constraints (e.g., uniqueness/duplication behavior) and does not mention what happens on success, leaving gaps an agent might want filled.
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 would need to compensate for the single 'name' parameter, and it says nothing about it. The parameter is self-evident from its name and the schema enforces minLength/maxLength, so the gap is minor, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 save') and resource ('a Contacts group'), which inherently separates it from apple_contacts_create (a person) and apple_contacts_add_to_group (existing group). It stops short of naming any sibling or scope constraints, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apple_contacts_create or apple_contacts_add_to_group. The only contextual sentence is a precondition ('Refuses pending unsaved Contacts edits'), which is a constraint rather than usage routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.