yazio-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as specifying it removes from a 'consumption log,' but doesn't detail effects like whether removal is permanent or affects related data. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 destructive nature (per annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but could better address risks or confirmations. It covers the basic action but doesn't enhance understanding of outcomes or error cases, leaving some gaps in context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the 'itemId' parameter as a UUID for the consumed item. The description adds no extra semantic details beyond implying the item is in a 'consumption log,' which is redundant with the schema's description, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('food item from user consumption log'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_user_consumed_item' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing nuance about scope or constraints.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing item ID), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'get_user_consumed_items' for verification, leaving usage context unclear.

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