Circuitry 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. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't mention whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects spreadsheet structure. The description lacks critical context about consequences like shifting remaining rows or potential data loss, which is essential 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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and immediately specifies the target resource. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise while still being clear.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or the broader impact on the spreadsheet. Given the complexity of row deletion in a spreadsheet context, more information about behavioral consequences and expected outcomes is needed for proper agent usage.

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 mentions 'specific position' which aligns with the rowIndex parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide usage examples that would enhance understanding beyond the 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a row at a specific position'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheet.deleteColumn' or 'nodes.delete', but the specificity of 'row' provides implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by not just repeating 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.deleteColumn' or 'sheet.updateRow'. It mentions the specific position requirement but doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or what happens to adjacent rows after deletion. There's no explicit 'when-not' or alternative tool recommendations.

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