Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool updates code content, can show a diff UI with 'showDiff: true', and syncs to source files for EServer-sourced nodes. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling or permissions, leaving some 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 well-structured and concise, with every sentence earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidelines and critical warnings in a bulleted format, making it easy to parse without unnecessary verbiage.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, it doesn't detail the return value or error conditions, which could be important for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'showDiff' option's purpose ('to show inline diff UI for user to review/accept changes') and clarifying that 'code' should be the modified content from 'code.getCode'. This provides context beyond the schema's basic 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 ('Update code content in a code node') and distinguishes it from sibling tools. It explicitly contrasts with 'nodes.delete' for deleting entire nodes and references 'code.getCode' as a prerequisite step, making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It specifies to use this for 'remove/add/change the X function' requests, not for deleting nodes, and gives concrete examples ('remove the power function' vs. 'delete the node') with corresponding alternative tools ('code.getCode' and 'nodes.delete').

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