Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sets a formula, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing content, error handling for invalid formulas, or side effects. The formula format constraint is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and following with a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 is incomplete. It lacks information on what happens after setting the formula (e.g., does it return success/failure, update the sheet immediately?), error conditions, permissions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The formula constraint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the broader gaps.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (nodeId, row, col, formula) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the formula format ('must start with ='), but doesn't provide additional context like examples beyond the schema's 'e.g., "=SUM(A1:A10)"'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Set a formula') and the resource ('for a cell'), with a specific constraint ('Formulas must start with ='). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sheet.setCell' (which likely sets values) and 'sheet.getCellFormula', but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sheet.setCell' or 'sheet.setCells' is provided. The description mentions the formula format constraint, but doesn't indicate prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly guided.

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