Admina 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 mentions what can be modified but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing data), or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose and key modifiable elements. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance or behavioral details.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, and details on return values or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing modifiable aspects (e.g., 'dropdown configuration'), but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 ('Update') and resource ('existing device custom field configuration'), and specifies what can be modified ('field name, code, visibility for device types, and dropdown configuration'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_device_custom_field' and 'delete_device_custom_field' by focusing on updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_device' or 'update_device_meta'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_device_custom_field' or 'delete_device_custom_field', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing custom field ID. Usage is implied by the action 'update,' but no explicit context or exclusions are stated.

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