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 mentions partial updates ('Provide only the fields you want to update') and parameter formats for 'query' and 'chart_meta', but lacks critical details: whether this is a mutating operation, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like. For an update tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant: the first states the tool's function and update behavior, the second clarifies parameter formats. There's no fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 complexity of an update operation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers basic parameter usage but misses behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error scenarios, and response format. For a tool with 7 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that updates are partial (not all fields required) and notes that 'query' and 'chart_meta' accept JSON strings or objects, which is somewhat redundant with the schema's 'anyOf' definitions. Baseline 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 action ('Update') and resource ('existing advanced report'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_application' or 'update_project', which have similar update patterns but target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing report ID), compare to 'create_advanced_report' for new reports, or specify error conditions like invalid report IDs. The description only covers parameter usage, not tool selection.

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