Remember Me Collections

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that it browses 'published' collections (implying there may be unpublished ones), and mentions pagination behavior through limit/offset parameters. While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds practical usage context about what kind of data is accessible.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence establishes purpose and capabilities, and the Args section efficiently documents all parameters with clear examples and constraints.

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 this is a read-only browsing tool with comprehensive annotations, 0% schema description coverage compensated by excellent parameter documentation in the description, and the existence of an output schema (which means return values don't need explanation), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, and all parameter semantics thoroughly.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters and does so comprehensively. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: search term scope, language code format, ordering options with defaults, limit range, and offset purpose for pagination. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('browse') and resource ('published Bible verse collections'), and distinguishes this tool from its siblings by specifying it's for browsing/searching collections rather than getting detailed information (get_collection_detail) or metrics (get_collection_metrics). The description explicitly mentions search, filter, and sort capabilities.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('browse published Bible verse collections'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare it to the sibling tools. The mention of search/filter/sort capabilities implies usage scenarios, but lacks explicit 'use this when X, use sibling Y when Z' 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 reveals important behavioral traits beyond annotations: the restriction requiring X-MCP-Write-Token, order preservation of verses, and the CSV convention for an intro row. These details help the agent understand invocation nuances and prerequisites.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose with restriction, followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary information: parameter details, authentication requirement, behavioral notes, and default behaviors. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: publisher_name (exact name), description (max chars), verses (object structure, order), and optional fields with defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create and publish a Bible-verse collection'. It identifies the resource and action, and the restriction 'requires X-MCP-Write-Token' adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (browse, get details, get metrics) which are read-only.

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 implies usage for creation via the verb 'Create and publish' and the required token, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. Sibling names suggest different purposes, but no direct guidance is provided.

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 significant context beyond annotations: soft-delete (reversible), sets deleted flag, removes from listings, and requires token and owner scope. Annotations only indicate non-readOnly, destructive, and idempotent; the description enriches understanding of the 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?

The description is well-structured with a header and an Args section. It is mostly concise, though the line 'You can only delete collections owned by the configured write owner' is somewhat redundant with the earlier 'owner-scoped' mention.

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 description covers behavior, restrictions, and effects well. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. Minor gaps exist regarding restoration process and cascading effects on verses, but overall it is contextually adequate.

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 should compensate. It merely restates 'collection_id: The collection ID to delete,' which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and type. No guidance on how to obtain the ID or constraints is provided.

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 clearly states the tool performs a soft-delete (unpublish) of a collection and its verses, and specifies it is reversible and owner-scoped. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_collection or create_collection.

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 mentions the requirement for X-MCP-Write-Token and owner-scoping, giving clear usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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 provide safety and behavior hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds valuable context by specifying it retrieves 'full details' including specific content types (verse text, references, topics), which helps the agent understand the depth and nature of the returned data beyond what annotations indicate.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's scope, and the second clarifies the parameter's usage. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It provides purpose, parameter guidance, and content details, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 fully compensates by clearly explaining the single parameter's purpose and source ('collection_id: The collection ID (from browse_collections results)'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making the parameter's role and origin clear.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get full details') and resource ('published collection'), with explicit scope ('including all verse text, references, and topics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (browse_collections, get_collection_metrics) by focusing on detailed content rather than listing or metrics.

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 provides clear context by specifying it's for 'published collection' details and referencing the source of collection_id ('from browse_collections results'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_collection_metrics for different purposes.

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 provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context by specifying the types of metrics retrieved (e.g., memorization progress, activity stats), which isn't covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present, and it offers additional operational insight.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence and following with parameter details. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., bullet points for metrics).

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 tool's complexity (simple read operation with one parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what metrics are retrieved and parameter semantics, addressing key gaps without overloading with redundant information.

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 compensate. It explains that 'collection_id' is 'The collection ID (from browse_collections results)', adding semantic meaning about the parameter's source and purpose beyond the schema's basic type and title. This effectively clarifies the parameter, though it could be more detailed (e.g., format or constraints).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get community engagement metrics') and resources ('memorization progress, verse mastery, difficult verses, and activity stats'), making it easy to understand what data is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_collection_detail', which might also provide collection-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 implies usage by referencing 'collection_id (from browse_collections results)', suggesting a workflow where this tool follows browsing, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_collection_detail' or provide clear exclusions. This gives some context but lacks detailed guidance on tool selection.

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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds essential context: requires write token, owner-scoped, and explains clearing behavior for nullable fields. No contradiction.

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?

Concise and well-structured: a summary line followed by a bulleted argument list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 an output schema present, return values are not needed. Description covers constraints, parameter behavior, and ownership. Slightly lacking in edge-case handling (e.g., invalid 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description carries full burden. It explains all 7 parameters, notably the clearing behavior for website and image. Other fields are listed but not further detailed.

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 clearly states the tool updates fields of an existing published collection, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_collection and browse_collections by focusing on the update operation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: only passed fields are changed, collections must be owned by the write owner, and a special token is required. Lacks direct comparison to alternatives but context is clear.

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 significant behavioral context beyond annotations: requires X-MCP-Write-Token, owner-scoped, partial update, nullable field handling with empty string, non-emptiable fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concisely structured in two parts: a brief summary and a bulleted args list. Every sentence adds valuable information without redundancy.

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 presence of annotations and output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: update operation, access control, partial update semantics, and parameter details. It is complete for an update 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter's meaning, including special behaviors like clearing nullable fields with empty string and non-emptiable constraints.

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 clearly states the verb ('Update fields') and resource ('a single verse in a collection'), with specific restrictions and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_collection and get_collection_detail.

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 specifies when to use (requires write token, owner-scoped) and explains the partial update behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but provides enough context for proper usage.

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