Codecks MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if archiving is reversible (though 'codecks_unarchive_card' exists as a sibling), permission requirements, side effects on related data, or error conditions, which are critical for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's use case without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and implied usage, but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or response format, which are important given the tool's complexity and lack of structured data.

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 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It appropriately focuses on tool purpose rather than repeating schema information, earning a baseline score since no parameter semantics are required beyond the schema.

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 ('archive') and resource ('a card'), specifying it's for cards that are done and no longer needed in active view. It distinguishes from siblings like 'codecks_complete_card' by focusing on archiving rather than completion, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'codecks_unarchive_card' or 'codecks_delete_space' for permanent removal.

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 implied usage guidance ('for cards that are done and no longer needed in active view'), suggesting when to use it based on card status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. deleting or completing) or name alternatives like 'codecks_unarchive_card' for reversal, leaving some ambiguity.

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