Clink MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions HIL verification email links with expiry times, suggesting authentication/verification behavior, but doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether votes are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are necessary given 0% schema coverage. Minor improvement could be separating usage guidance from parameter docs, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well explaining parameter semantics and voting mechanics. Since an output schema exists, return values don't need description. However, for a mutation tool (voting), more behavioral context about permissions, reversibility, or side effects would improve completeness.

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 fully. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains 'vote' accepts 'yes'/'no' for yes_no proposals, option names for single choice, and comma-separated preferences for ranked voting. It clarifies 'hil_expiry_seconds' is for verification email links with min/max/default values. This adds substantial meaning 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 tool's purpose: 'Cast a vote on a proposal.' It specifies the action (cast) and resource (vote on proposal), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'finalize_proposal' or 'create_proposal' which are related but distinct operations.

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 implied usage guidance by explaining how to vote for different proposal types (yes/no, single choice, ranked), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_proposal' or 'finalize_proposal'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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