SD Elements MCP Server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it explains that the 'notes' parameter sets a status_note that is only saved when the status changes, warns about the limitation if the countermeasure already has the target status, and provides workarounds (use add_countermeasure_note or change status twice). This goes beyond basic functionality to include important operational nuances.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidelines. Each sentence adds valuable information, such as parameter details and behavioral notes. While it is slightly longer due to necessary explanations, there is minimal waste, and the information is organized logically for clarity.

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 the tool (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job of providing context. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and behavioral nuances. However, it does not explicitly mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, which could be relevant for a mutation tool, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 significant value by explaining parameter semantics: it clarifies that countermeasure_id can be an integer or string with examples (e.g., 21, 'T21', '31244-T21'), and that status can be provided as name, slug, or ID with examples (e.g., 'Complete', 'DONE', 'TS1'). It also explains the 'notes' parameter behavior in detail, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a countermeasure (status or notes).' It specifies the exact resources being modified (countermeasure status or notes) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_countermeasure_note' by clarifying what operations it handles versus what it does not.

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 (e.g., when user says 'update status', 'mark as complete', or 'change status') and when not to use it (e.g., for 'add note', 'document', or 'note' - use add_countermeasure_note instead). It also mentions an alternative tool (add_countermeasure_note) for specific scenarios, making the usage context very clear.

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