Record a new lead while checking for duplicates by email, then phone, before writing any data.
Record a new lead, deduplicating on email then phone before any write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| company | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| problem_notes | No | ||
| service_interest | 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, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: dedup on email then phone happens before any write. However, it is silent on the two most consequential behavioral gates in the schema — `confirm` and `dry_run` — leaving the agent unable to tell whether a real write occurs by default.
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 with no filler, and the dedup constraint is placed before the write implication. It is efficient but so terse that efficiency shades into under-specification for a 10-parameter mutation.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, 10 undocumented parameters, and no statement of what a duplicate produces or what success looks like. For a write tool with built-in confirmation flags, the description is materially incomplete.
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 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only touches email and phone as dedup keys; name, source, company, location, problem_notes, service_interest, and critically confirm/dry_run are all unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Record a new lead") plus a distinguishing behavioral detail (dedup on email then phone). Implicitly distinct from siblings like get_lead/update_stage, but no sibling is named and the boundary with update_stage is left to inference.
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 on when to call this versus update_stage (existing lead) or check_availability/book_appointment downstream. Nothing says when a record should not be created, or whether a duplicate match aborts or returns the existing lead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.