SD Elements 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 that this is a mutation operation ('ADDS new answers') with a non-destructive behavior ('while preserving all existing ones'), which is crucial context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if duplicate answers are added.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the third clarifies the alternative. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly explaining the additive behavior and distinguishing from the replacement alternative. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, updated state) or address potential edge cases like duplicate handling or validation rules.

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 both parameters completely. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of project_id, constraints on answer texts). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('ADD survey answers by text'), specifies the resource ('existing answers'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'set_project_survey_by_text' which replaces rather than adds. The verb 'adds' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 ('when user says add, include, or wants to add to existing answers') and when to use the alternative ('Use set_project_survey_by_text ONLY if user explicitly wants to REPLACE all answers'). It clearly defines the boundary between these two sibling tools.

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