Update the name, description, or active status of an SMS contact list without altering its members. Manage your Crazytel contact lists by adjusting metadata as needed.
Update SMS contact list metadata (name, description, active). Does not change members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | List name | |
| uuid | Yes | Contact list UUID | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the mutation scope and the important boundary that members are unaffected. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what the response contains, leaving notable gaps for a write operation.
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 front-loaded sentence: it names the verb and resource, lists the affected fields, and ends with a clarifying exclusion. There is no wasted wording, and the most important scoping information is presented immediately.
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 simple four-parameter metadata update with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and an important boundary. It is slightly incomplete only in that it does not explain preconditions or side effects, but the schema and boundary note are sufficient for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by grouping name, description, and active as 'metadata' and explicitly clarifying that member data is out of scope, which helps the agent interpret the parameters beyond their raw schema labels.
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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('SMS contact list') and scopes the work to metadata fields: name, description, active. It also explicitly states 'Does not change members,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from membership-changing tools like add_contacts_to_list.
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 clearly frames the tool as the metadata-update operation and includes an explicit when-not: 'Does not change members.' It does not name the alternative sibling tool for member changes, so it stops just short of fully explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.