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 effectively describes the tool's mutation behavior (updating device meta), explains the relationship between status and assignment (how certain statuses trigger unassignment), and specifies default values. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements that would be helpful 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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage guidance, and explaining status-assignment relationships. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately clear.

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 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter relationships. The main gap is the lack of information about what the tool returns or any error conditions, which would be helpful given it's a write operation. However, the description provides substantial context beyond the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the relationships between parameters: how status affects assignment (unassignment with 'in_stock' or 'decommissioned'), the interplay between peopleId and status, and the default behavior when assigned without status. This provides valuable semantic understanding that isn't captured in the individual parameter 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('device's meta information'), specifying what fields can be updated including assignment info and location. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'update_device' by focusing specifically on meta/assignment information rather than general device updates.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this to assign/unassign devices to people') and includes specific conditions for unassignment ('When unassigned, status should be 'in_stock' or 'decommissioned'') and default behavior ('When assigned without status, defaults to 'active''). This gives clear operational context beyond what the schema provides.

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