Examplary 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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete organization' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it fails to specify critical details like required permissions, confirmation steps, cascading effects on related resources (e.g., exams, users), or error conditions. This leaves the agent guessing about safety and side-effects.

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?

While concise with two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details (e.g., scope, risks) and fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and high-stakes context (deleting an organization), the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential information about behavior, outcomes, prerequisites, and error handling, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use it safely or effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—it doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 'Delete organization' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'deleteOrg'. It provides no additional specificity about what 'organization' refers to, what resources are affected, or how the deletion operates. While the verb 'Delete' is clear, it lacks distinction from sibling tools like 'deleteFoldersid' or 'deleteUsersid'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention sibling tools like 'patchOrg' for updates or 'getOrg' for retrieval, nor does it specify conditions for deletion (e.g., only for admins or when no dependencies exist).

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