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 basic creation action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate card names, if there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides parameter guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, potential error conditions, or how this tool differs behaviorally from similar siblings like update_card. The schema handles parameter documentation, but the description lacks crucial operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the either/or relationship between deckId and deckName and the optional project parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Create a new card') and target resource ('in a deck'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_deck or create_project. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_card or move_card in terms of creation versus modification operations.

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 clear context for parameter usage ('Specify either deckId or deckName'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_card for existing cards or move_card for relocation. It mentions optional project usage but doesn't compare with other creation tools.

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