BeingSo Animated Cards

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes beyond them by explaining what is preserved (a cancellation receipt) and the exact race window that determines success or failure. It does not specify what error or state is returned when cancellation is attempted too late, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the precondition (owned, pending, before claiming) is front-loaded before the idempotency and failure-window notes.

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 single-parameter mutation whose safety profile is already covered by annotations, the description supplies the timing constraint, ownership requirement, idempotency confirmation, and receipt behavior. The only meaningful gap is how a too-late attempt surfaces (error vs. status change), which the absence of an output schema leaves unresolved.

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 single required parameter dispatch_id has 0% schema description coverage; only its regex pattern is documented. The description implies the identifier refers to a dispatch request but adds no format, sourcing, or retrieval guidance, so it neither compensates for the gap nor repeats anything harmful.

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 names a specific verb (cancel), a specific resource (an owned pending dispatch request), and a scope/precondition (before worker claiming). It is clearly distinct from siblings like send_ecard, publish_ecard, or get_ecard_status, which handle creation, dispatch, or read-only inspection.

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 states both when to use it (owned, pending, not yet claimed) and when it's too late (once processing begins). It does not name an alternative to use in the too-late case, such as get_ecard_status, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail by describing returned content and clarifying that it does not send email, though it does not cover authorization or error behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return behavior and workflow guidance. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains return values and the key usage context, and annotations cover safety. It could be more complete by noting where draft_id comes from or what happens for missing/unowned IDs.

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 sole parameter draft_id is mentioned only as the identifier used to retrieve an owned card or draft. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds some meaning but does not explain format, provenance, or validation beyond the schema’s pattern.

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 the specific verb “Retrieve” with the resource “owned MCP card or draft” and the key “draft_id.” It also states what is returned, including latest revision, reviewed content, preview, and public URL when published, which clearly distinguishes it from list/search/status siblings.

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 gives a clear workflow context: “Use before adding email recipient details to an existing published card,” and clarifies “Does not send email.” It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_ecard_status, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by explaining that the receipt distinguishes transport acceptance from remote-content activity and by warning that tracking-pixel activity may come from a proxy or scanner rather than a human reader.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence contributes distinct value: the operation, the distinction between receipt types, and the important interpretation caveat.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the receipt means, and it does so by contrasting transport acceptance with remote-content activity and warning against treating tracking pixels as proof of reading. It could be more complete by explaining how to obtain a dispatch_id or what fields the receipt returns.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It names dispatch_id but does not explain its format, where to obtain it, or what constitutes a valid value, leaving the 32-character hex pattern in the schema as the only constraint.

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: read an owned dispatch receipt by dispatch_id. It also distinguishes the tool's scope from sibling tools like get_ecard and list_ecards by focusing on dispatch receipts, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need the status of a specific dispatch. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over get_ecard, search_ecards, or list_ecards, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: result ordering (newest first), the field set returned, pagination presence, and the notable exclusion of website-created cards and email sending. It stops short of stating default page size or rate/limit behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and ordering, then the return shape, then the usage pointer and exclusions. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by listing returned fields, and it notes pagination and ordering. Small gaps remain: no default limit or guidance on iterating the cursor, and 'revisions' is left undefined.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it only partially does: 'with pagination' implies cursor/limit semantics but never explains the limit range (1-20), the default, or that cursor is an opaque numeric offset token. An agent can guess usage but has no stated contract.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'List cards and drafts created through BeingSo MCP by the connected account, newest first.' It also enumerates the returned fields (titles, recipient names, creation times, revisions, draft_ids) and explicitly excludes website-created cards, so an agent knows exactly what set this tool operates on.

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 gives a clear use case and next step: 'Use to find a previously created card, then get_ecard to recover its content and sharing links.' It also states a negative boundary (no website-created cards, sends no email). What's missing is explicit routing against the closest sibling, search_ecards, which is never named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag this as a non-idempotent, destructive mutation, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: published edits go live immediately at the same public URL, design and language are immutable, a verified account is required, and transport-submitted cards only allow title/message/signature changes. It reassures that editing never resends email or alters a dispatch receipt. The one gap is that it never explains what gets overwritten for a draft or what a failed optimistic-concurrency check returns, but overall disclosure is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and then a roughly chronological workflow, which is the right order for an agent reading top-down. It is dense at eleven sentences and some clauses (title/message suggestion etiquette, preview_url display) read as agent instructions rather than tool semantics, but nearly every sentence carries non-redundant information.

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 an 11-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the workflow, lifecycle restrictions and permission requirements an agent needs before invoking it. Residual gaps are minor: the meaning of the returned preview_url and revision counter are implied rather than explained, and a few optional parameters remain uncovered by both schema and description.

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?

With only 27% schema description coverage, the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains that design_id must be a currently enabled creative ID, that title is optional while message and signature are required, that recipient details (and by extension recipient_name/recipient_email) are optional for link sharing, that draft_id plus expected_revision drive published edits, and that scheduling details may change before dispatch. It still leaves timezone, scheduled_at format expectations and expected_revision's concurrency semantics implicit rather than stated outright.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: save or update an owned text-only draft or published card, scoped to creative IDs enabled in the MCP catalog. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming publish_ecard, send_ecard and get_ecard and stating the condition under which each is used, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: create or update a draft, then preview and offer publish_ecard or send_ecard; to edit a published card, call get_ecard first and supply draft_id and expected_revision. It also states blocking conditions (pending or unresolved email processing) and what may change at each lifecycle stage, which is unusually complete routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: verified-account requirement, the returned URLs, the idempotency detail ("repeated calls return the same card"), and a hard sharing constraint ("Share only card_url with recipients", not the sender share_page_url). It does not spell out that publishing creates publicly visible content that persists, which is the destructiveHint=true concern, so a small but meaningful gap remains.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, with no filler. The instruction to "offer these options and any messaging, email or social tools available to you" is the one mildly sprawling clause, but it earns its place as agent guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return payload (card_url, sender share_page_url, sharing_methods), the auth prerequisite, and idempotency. The only missing piece for a public-publish mutation is a note on the permanence/visibility implications of making content public.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameters, and it only partially does: "exact reviewed draft revision" and "current revision" imply expected_revision is an optimistic-concurrency guard, but it never says what happens on a revision mismatch, nor does it explain draft_id beyond context. Useful hints, not full compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

"Publish the exact reviewed draft revision as a public personalized card without sending or scheduling email" gives a specific verb, resource, and explicit exclusion, which cleanly separates it from send_ecard and prepare_ecard. An agent can pick this tool over its six siblings from the first sentence alone.

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 states the negative condition (no email sending or scheduling), the prerequisite (verified account), the fallback path for editing (prepare_ecard with the current revision), and the follow-up behavior expected of the agent (offer sharing methods and ask which the user prefers). Alternatives and conditions are named rather than inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is done. The description adds real context beyond that: the result set is bounded by the server's enabled events/creative IDs, and output is posters/demos rather than personalized drafts. It omits pagination/limit behavior for the cursor, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and the 'not personalized drafts' caveat is well placed. Mild redundancy in restating the language rule ('Every design suits every language' followed by the fr/en naming rule) that could be merged into one sentence.

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?

Five optional parameters at 20% coverage and no output schema means the description should explain the query/occasion/search-surface semantics and pagination. It does not, leaving an agent guessing how to construct a useful search beyond picking a language.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry the other four parameters and does not. It explains language (restating the schema's own enum description almost verbatim) but never says what 'query' matches, what 'occasion' filters on, what 'limit' defaults to, or how 'cursor' pages.

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: 'Search public animated card designs from the events and creative IDs currently enabled in the server MCP card catalog configuration.' The closing line 'Returns posters and design demos, not personalized drafts' clarifies it is a catalog browse, not a personal draft lookup, which implicitly separates it from get_ecard/list_ecards. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Use is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before prepare_ecard or send_ecard because it returns designs, not personalized drafts. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use this for' statement, and no mention of alternatives among the seven siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, yet the description adds the auth prerequisite (verified sender) and, critically, the semantic limit of success: acceptance creates a durable request only, and pending_handoff must never be reported as sent or transport-accepted. That is exactly the kind of outcome-interpretation detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, precondition, scope limit, retry rule, and result semantics. The most failure-prone fact (pending_handoff is not a send) is placed last as a warning without padding elsewhere.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, idempotency and the meaning of the returned status, which is the hard part. It stops short of telling the agent what to do on a revision mismatch or how to follow up via get_ecard_status, leaving a small operational gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, and it does: draft_id is tied to the exact reviewed revision, idempotency_key is tied to retry safety, and the sentence about non-replaceable fields clarifies what the call deliberately cannot change. expected_revision's role as a staleness/concurrency guard is only implied, not stated, so it falls short of full coverage.

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?

"Request dispatch of the exact reviewed draft revision" gives a specific verb (dispatch) and a precisely scoped resource (a reviewed draft revision), which separates it from prepare_ecard and publish_ecard. It never names a sibling outright, so an agent must infer that this is the send step rather than the compose step.

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?

Preconditions are stated clearly: a verified sender is required, and recipient, message and time cannot be substituted here, which tells the agent not to attempt a send-and-edit. Retry guidance for the idempotency key is explicit. What is missing is routing to alternatives, e.g. use prepare_ecard to change content or cancel_scheduled_ecard to abort.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.