Things MCP

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the openWorldHint annotation. It mentions authentication requirements ('your Things auth-token'), which is useful since annotations don't cover authentication. However, it doesn't describe what 'Update' entails behaviorally - whether it's a partial or complete update, how conflicts are handled, or what happens to unspecified fields. With annotations providing only openWorldHint, the description could do more to explain the tool's behavior.

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 just two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the key requirements. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complex update tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. While the schema provides excellent parameter documentation, the description doesn't explain what constitutes a successful update, what gets returned, or how to interpret the various update options. The openWorldHint annotation suggests flexibility, but the description doesn't elaborate on this behavioral aspect.

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 already documents all 18 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it only mentions the two required parameters (authToken and id) without explaining their purpose or relationship. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide additional value.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'existing project in Things', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update-todo' tool, which appears to serve a similar update function for a different 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 mentions that it 'Requires the project ID and your Things auth-token', which provides some basic prerequisites but doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-todo' or other project-related tools. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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