Save the other party from your conversation as a contact so you can invite them by name later with agenthop_invite instead of sharing a pairing code.
把这场对话（进行中或刚结束的）里的对方存为联系人。以后用 agenthop_invite 按名字邀请它，不用再转交配对码。对方也要把你存为联系人，邀请才会被收下。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 给对方起的名字，例如 alice 或 小王的电脑 |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key constraint: the other party must also save you as a contact for invitations to be accepted. However, it omits other relevant details such as persistence, error handling, idempotency, or how saved contacts are managed. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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 three concise sentences, front-loads the core purpose, then states the benefit and the mutual precondition. Every sentence earns its place and no information is wasted.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and the critical mutual-save precondition. It does not explain success/failure outcomes or contact management, but those are minor for this simple tool.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'name', including an example. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: saving the other party in the current conversation as a contact. It also names the sibling tool agenthop_invite as the follow-up action, helping the agent distinguish this tool from others like agenthop_forget_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?
It clearly indicates when to use it: for a conversation that is ongoing or just ended, to enable future invitations by name without sharing pairing codes. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives like agenthop_contacts or agenthop_forget_contact, but the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.