CDP MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool adds to 'site memory,' implying persistence, but doesn't specify if this is permanent, reversible, or requires specific permissions. For a tool that modifies memory without annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing behavioral traits like data retention or access controls.

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 front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. There's no unnecessary information, and each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the second provides context. It could be slightly improved by integrating the two ideas more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like how notes are stored or retrieved. Without annotations or output schema, more context on the tool's effects and limitations would be beneficial, but it meets a minimum viable level for a simple memory-adding 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Note to add' for 'note'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only hints at usage ('record what you learned') without detailing parameter interactions or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Add a note or selector pattern to site memory.' It specifies the verb ('Add') and resource ('note or selector pattern to site memory'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like cdp_site_clear or cdp_site_info, which also interact with site memory but for different purposes.

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 some usage context: 'Use this to record what you learned about interacting with a site.' This implies it's for documenting insights during site interactions, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cdp_site_clear (for clearing memory) or cdp_site_info (for retrieving info). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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