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. It states the action ('Insert') but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it shifts existing columns, requires specific permissions, affects formulas, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core action ('Insert a column') and specifies the key detail ('at a specific position'). There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (a mutation operation with 4 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like effects on the sheet, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (nodeId, colIndex, data, header). The description implies a 'position' parameter but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'colIndex' interacts with existing columns or what 'data' format is expected. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Insert a column') and specifies the location ('at a specific position'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheet.insertRow' or 'sheet.deleteColumn', which would require mentioning it's for columns specifically versus rows or deletion operations.

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 sheet), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'sheet.insertRow' or 'sheet.setData'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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