lexware_create_contactCreate a new customer or vendor contact with company, person, address, email, and phone details in Lexware Office.
Create a new contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Contact JSON. Key fields: version (0 for new), roles (object with customer/vendor), company (object with name), person (object with firstName, lastName), addresses (object with billing/shipping arrays), emailAddresses, phoneNumbers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., required permissions, side effects like address validation) beyond confirming it creates a contact.
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 with no waste, though it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral notes without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., created contact ID or object). This is a significant gap for a creation tool, especially when sibling tools like lexware_get_contact exist.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including nested fields. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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.' uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('contact'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lexware_update_contact or lexware_get_contact.
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?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool compared to alternatives (e.g., lexware_update_contact for updates) or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.