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 this is a mutation tool ('update'), specifies format constraints ('risk_policy must be numeric ID'), and references other tools for prerequisite information. It doesn't mention permissions, error conditions, or response format, but provides solid operational context.

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 two focused paragraphs: the first states purpose and usage guidelines, the second provides critical parameter clarification. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and important 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly stating the tool's purpose, providing usage guidelines, distinguishing from alternatives, and clarifying a critical parameter constraint. It could be more complete by mentioning response format or error conditions, but covers the essential operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the risk_policy parameter must be a numeric ID (not name) and references list_risk_policies for finding IDs, but doesn't provide additional context about other parameters beyond what's in 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('update an existing project') and identifies the exact fields that can be modified (name, description, status, risk_policy). It distinguishes this tool from sibling 'delete_project' by explicitly stating what it does NOT do.

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 usage guidelines including when to use ('when user says update, change, modify, or rename'), when NOT to use ('do NOT use for archive, delete, or remove'), and references an alternative tool ('use delete_project instead'). It also mentions using 'list_risk_policies' to find required IDs.

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