Create a new contact in BoondManager by supplying first name, last name, email, and company ID; add phone, job title, or department as needed.
Create a new contact
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| phone | No | ||
| jobTitle | No | ||
| lastName | Yes | ||
| companyId | Yes | ||
| firstName | Yes | ||
| department | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new contact' without mentioning side effects, return values, authentication requirements, or any other behaviors. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though it does earn its place by conveying the core action.
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 create tool with 7 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain success behavior, required fields, or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer too much from the schema alone.
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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the required fields are only listed in the schema, not in the description.
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 'Create a new contact' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (contact), and it distinguishes from sibling operations like search, get, and update. However, it is minimal and does not add specific details about the contact entity, making it slightly less informative than a more descriptive purpose statement.
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 this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as when an existing contact should be updated instead, or any prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.