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 for behavioral disclosure. While it states the action and purpose, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to existing project data, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the action and purpose, the second documents the parameter. The Args section is appropriately formatted and adds necessary detail 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter well. However, it lacks important behavioral context like permission requirements, side effects, and error handling that would be needed for safe invocation by an agent.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'project_id' and its purpose ('The project ID to reopen'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter and the description fully explains it, this compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Re-open'), target resource ('a completed or archived project'), and purpose ('allows adding new milestones or continuing work'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'complete_project' and 'archive_project' by specifying it operates on already completed/archived projects.

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 for when to use this tool: when a project is 'completed or archived' and needs to be reopened for continued work. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'update_project' for modifying active projects.

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