Circuitry MCP Server

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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects dependent data (e.g., formulas or charts), or has side effects like shifting other columns. It also omits error conditions (e.g., invalid column index) and response format, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Delete' and avoids redundancy or fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as the effect on the sheet (e.g., data loss, column shifting), error handling, permissions required, or whether the action is undoable. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values or success indicators, but it does not. Given the complexity of a delete operation, more behavioral and contextual details are needed.

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%, with clear documentation of 'nodeId' as 'Sheet node ID or name' and 'colIndex' as 'Column to delete (0-indexed)'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints (e.g., column must exist). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have enhanced understanding with practical usage notes.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a column at a specific position'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheet.deleteRow', but the specificity of 'column' versus 'row' provides implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.

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 like 'sheet.deleteRow' or 'sheet.insertColumn'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the sheet must exist or be editable) or exclusions (e.g., cannot delete all columns). There's no mention of related tools or typical workflows, leaving usage entirely to inference from the tool name and parameters.

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