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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes critical behavioral traits: the destructive nature of deletion, ownership requirements, and dependency constraints (not used in exams). This goes beyond just stating the action to explain important preconditions and consequences.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds crucial constraints. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining ownership requirements and dependency constraints. However, it doesn't mention what happens on success (confirmation? returns deleted object?) or failure modes beyond the stated constraints, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 description mentions 'by its ID' which corresponds to the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't provide additional details about the ID format, validation rules, or examples. It adds basic meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 specific action ('Deletes') and resource ('a specific question type by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'deleteQuestion_bankid' or 'deleteExamsid' by specifying the exact entity being deleted. It goes beyond just restating the name to explain what the tool actually 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 explicit usage constraints: 'only the owner organization of the question type can delete it, and only if it has not been used in an exam.' This gives clear context about when the tool can be used successfully. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives or compare with sibling tools like 'deleteQuestion_bankid'.

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