unphurl-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: permanence ('This is permanent') and side effects ('Any future check requests... will fall back to default weights'). It lacks details on permissions or error handling, but covers critical mutation aspects adequately.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and critical warning ('permanent'), followed by practical guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (destructive operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete—covering purpose, permanence, and side effects. It could mention authentication needs or error cases, but for a single-parameter tool, it provides sufficient context for safe use.

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 the 'name' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the name must refer to an existing custom profile, but with only one parameter, the baseline is high. It doesn't compensate for gaps, but none exist.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a custom scoring profile'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_profile' or 'list_profiles'. It provides explicit scope by mentioning 'custom' profiles, avoiding ambiguity with default ones.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool ('before deleting') by recommending 'list_profiles' to see current profiles. It also implicitly suggests when not to use it (e.g., for default profiles or other operations like 'create_profile'), providing clear context for selection.

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