ChartMogul MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral context. It mentions the tool returns an updated contact object but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or how partial updates are handled. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 key information front-loaded: API context, action, modifiable fields, custom format example, return value, and required parameters. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., combining some details).

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and output details. It's minimally adequate given the complexity but should explain more about the update operation's implications and response format.

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 both parameters: uuid (required string identifier) and data (dict containing modifiable fields). It explicitly lists all modifiable fields, explains the custom array format with an example, and clarifies the data structure, adding 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 tool updates contact information with specific modifiable fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_contact (creation) and retrieve_contact (read-only). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_customer or update_task, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing contact UUID), compare with create_contact for new contacts, or explain when to choose update_contact over update_customer for related operations.

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