RSpace 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 communicates critical traits: the operation is permanent ('cannot be undone'), has a state restriction ('only works for forms in NEW state'), and returns a confirmation. It does not cover aspects like error handling or permissions, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage, warning, and return value in separate lines. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation, state restriction), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage conditions, irreversible nature, and return type. Minor gaps include lack of explicit parameter explanation and error scenarios, but it provides sufficient context for safe use.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it does not explicitly mention the 'form_id' parameter, the context ('deletes a form template') implicitly defines what the parameter represents. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about parameter usage.

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 deletes') and resource ('a form template'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_form', 'get_form', 'publish_form', and 'unpublish_form'. It explicitly identifies the tool's destructive nature and scope.

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 on when to use this tool ('Remove unused forms') and a prerequisite condition ('only works for forms in NEW state'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'unpublish_form' for non-NEW forms).

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