Create a new resource in BoondManager by providing name, email, and optional details like skills, department, or hourly rate.
Create a new resource
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| phone | No | ||
| skills | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| lastName | Yes | ||
| firstName | Yes | ||
| department | No | ||
| hourlyRate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create', which implies mutation, but it does not mention any side effects, required permissions, validation behavior, or what happens on success or failure. There is no additional context beyond the basic action.
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 extremely brief (one short sentence), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any structure, context, or additional information that would make it useful. It is not verbose, but it fails to serve its communicative purpose.
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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what a resource is, what data is required, what the tool returns, or any prerequisites. An agent would have no idea how to correctly invoke this tool beyond guessing from the schema.
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 0% description coverage across 8 parameters, and the description does not mention or explain any of them. It adds no meaning to fields like email, phone, skills, status, or hourlyRate, leaving an agent with only the raw schema names and types to infer their purpose.
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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('a new resource'), but it is extremely generic and provides no specifics about what a resource is or how it differs from other create tools in the sibling set (e.g., boond_contracts_create, boond_candidates_create). It is not a tautology, but it lacks the detail needed for an agent to understand the specific entity being created.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling create tools. There is no mention of alternative tools, conditions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over others. The description simply restates the action without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.