Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—the constraint against deleting the last sheet—which is crucial for safe operation. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like error handling, permissions required, or whether the deletion is permanent, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 and includes a critical constraint. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a destructive operation with a constraint), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the main purpose and a key limitation, but lacks details on error cases, return values, or broader context like how this interacts with other spreadsheet tools, leaving room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters ('documentId' and 'index') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'index' refers to (e.g., zero-based). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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'), the resource ('a sheet'), and the scope ('from a standalone spreadsheet'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'sheet.deleteColumn' or 'sheet.deleteRow' which operate at a different granularity. It's specific and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 clear context with the constraint 'Cannot delete the last sheet,' which implicitly guides when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'spreadsheet.renameSheet' for modifying sheets instead of deleting, or prerequisites such as needing an existing spreadsheet with multiple sheets.

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