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. 'Replace all data' implies a destructive write operation, but it doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it clears formatting or formulas, or what happens to existing data. For a tool that completely replaces sheet content, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 maximally concise at just four words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'replace all data' entails operationally, what the tool returns, whether headers are optional or required, or how the data array should be structured. Given the complexity of completely replacing sheet content, more context is 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (nodeId, data, headers). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition when schema coverage is complete.

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 'Replace all data in a Sheet' clearly states the action (replace) and resource (Sheet data), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sheet.setCell or sheet.setCells, but the 'all data' scope provides some implicit distinction from more targeted 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. There are multiple sibling tools for modifying sheet data (sheet.setCell, sheet.setCells, sheet.fillRange, spreadsheet.setData), but the description doesn't indicate when this bulk replacement operation is appropriate versus more targeted updates.

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