Examplary 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: 'If there are any exams in the folder, they will be moved out of the folder,' which adds important context about side effects. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or confirmation requirements for a destructive operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a critical side effect. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and a key side effect, but it lacks details on permissions, error cases, or return values. Given the complexity and risk of deletion, more context would improve completeness.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all. This leaves the parameter's meaning and format (e.g., what constitutes a valid folder ID) undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a folder') and resource ('from the current workspace'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deleteExamsid' by specifying folder deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other delete operations beyond the resource type.

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 like 'deleteExamsid' or 'deleteOrg', nor does it mention prerequisites, permissions, or contextual constraints. It only describes the action without usage context.

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