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 indicates this is a mutation ('Hides', 'disable') and mentions the return value ('Updated form status'), but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects. It adds some context but is incomplete 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage and return details in two additional concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return indication, but could improve by adding more behavioral details like permissions or error cases.

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, but the description compensates by implying the parameter's purpose (identifying the form to hide). Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 ('Hides a form') and the target resource ('from document creation interface'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_form' (permanent removal) and 'publish_form' (opposite action). It precisely communicates what the tool does without being tautological.

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 ('Temporarily disable forms without deletion'), which implicitly distinguishes it from 'delete_form' for permanent removal. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'publish_form' or state when not to use it, keeping it from a perfect score.

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