SD Elements MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit), permission requirements, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with three sentences: purpose statement, usage context, and concrete example. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value - no redundancy or wasted words. The example is appropriately brief yet illustrative.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks critical behavioral information. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency needed for a write operation.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it reinforces that 'comment' explains 'why answers were selected' and the example shows parameter usage, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details not already in the schema 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 specific action ('Add a comment'), target resource ('to a survey question'), and purpose ('to explain why specific answers were selected'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_survey_answers_by_text' which modifies answers rather than adding comments, providing clear differentiation.

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 explain why specific answers were selected' and 'especially useful when setting project survey answers'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. The example reinforces the appropriate usage scenario.

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