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 describes the tool's behavior: it replaces all existing answers, explains the effect of the 'replace_all' parameter (deselecting current answers not in the new list if True, or only selecting new ones if False), and implies a mutation operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, which are important 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 well-structured and concise, with three sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's purpose, providing usage guidelines, and explaining parameter behavior. There is no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on permissions, error cases, or what the tool returns, which are gaps for a mutation tool without annotations or output schema. It's mostly complete but could be enhanced with more behavioral context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'replace_all' controls whether to deselect existing answers not in the new list (True) or only select new ones (False), and it implicitly explains that 'answer_texts' are the new answers to set. This provides valuable semantic understanding of how parameters interact, though it doesn't cover all parameters like 'survey_complete'.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Set/REPLACE all project survey answers by text') and distinguishes it from its sibling 'add_survey_answers_by_text' by emphasizing complete replacement versus addition. It explicitly identifies the resource (project survey answers) and the operation (replace).

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 versus alternatives: 'Use ONLY when user wants to completely replace all answers' and 'Use add_survey_answers_by_text if user says 'add' or wants to keep existing answers.' It clearly defines the context for selection and names the alternative tool.

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