Orgo MCP Server

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description elaborates with specific warnings ('Permanently delete', 'cannot be undone', 'All computers and their data will be lost'), mentions idempotent behavior through error handling examples, and provides concrete error messages. This gives the agent crucial operational context not captured in annotations alone.

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 structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core action and warning, then provides necessary details in organized sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff.

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 destructive operation with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, consequences, parameter usage, return format, examples, and error handling. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it provides all necessary context for safe and correct usage.

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 0% schema description coverage (the schema only has generic descriptions), the description compensates well by explaining that params contains project_id, specifying it comes from orgo_list_projects, and providing a concrete example. However, it doesn't fully document the ProjectIdInput structure beyond project_id, leaving some schema elements unexplained.

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 specific action ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a project and ALL its computers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like orgo_delete_computer (which deletes individual computers) and orgo_delete_file (which deletes files). The scope is explicitly defined as including all computers in the project.

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 when to use this tool (to delete entire projects with their computers) and includes a warning about its destructive nature. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like orgo_delete_computer for deleting individual computers instead of entire projects.

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