Create a new messaging contact from a name and phone number in a specified channel, enabling message sending to new recipients.
Create a contact from a name and phone number (POST /api/kalagh/contacts/create · gRPC CreateContact · socket "contacts/create")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| phone | Yes | ||
| channelId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data rather than the text. The description adds only transport trivia (POST path, gRPC method, socket event) and says nothing about duplicate handling, phone normalization, required channel state, or what happens on conflict.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence stating the action and its inputs, followed by a compact parenthetical of transport identifiers. Nothing is padded, though the transport parenthetical is arguably noise for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.
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 write tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without ductive information about required channel context, duplicate behavior, or the response shape. It is not misleading, but it is thin for the tool's complexity.
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% across three required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names name and phone but completely ignores channelId, the most opaque required field, and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's examples.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a contact') that clearly separates it from siblings such as contacts_update, contacts_delete, and contacts_get. It also names the two salient inputs (name, phone), though it omits the equally required channelId, so the scope is slightly understated.
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 over contacts_update/contacts_sync, no preconditions (e.g. does the channel need to be connected?), and no exclusions. The only guidance is the implicit 'create' verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.