Create an SMS contact list with a required name and optional description and active flag to organize recipients for bulk messaging.
Create an SMS contact list. Common fields: name, optional description and active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | List name | |
| active | No | Active flag | |
| description | No | Description |
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 burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Create...' and lists fields. It does not mention returned data, whether creation is idempotent, default values, or any permissions/effects beyond the obvious mutation.
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?
Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of schema details.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema fully covers parameters, but with no output schema or annotations the description leaves behavioral context (response, defaults, side effects) and sibling differentiation unaddressed. It is minimally viable but not complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description names the fields but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema entries.
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 action and resource: 'Create an SMS contact list.' It distinguishes this from sibling create_opt_out_list and create_contact by naming the contact-list resource.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_opt_out_list, add_contacts_to_list, or create_contact. The purpose sentence implies a create action but does not provide context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.