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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions supported formats, but lacks critical details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to existing content. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the primary action and adds useful format information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or response format. While it covers the basic purpose and parameters, it lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 both parameters ('nodeId' and 'content') adequately. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'content' accepts markdown/LaTeX, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 ('Update markdown content') and target ('in a Text node'), with specific format support mentioned ('Supports markdown and LaTeX'). It distinguishes from sibling 'text.getContent' by being a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other text-related tools like 'text.create'.

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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Text node), when not to use it, or direct comparisons to siblings like 'text.create' or 'text.getContent'.

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