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 offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions selecting and deselecting answers but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Update'), permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or how it interacts with survey completion status. For a tool with 4 parameters and no 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and covers both selection and deselection aspects. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly addresses the tool's functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling), doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, and provides no information about return values or success/failure indicators. The high schema coverage helps, but the description should compensate more for missing annotation and output schema coverage.

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 thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'answers' are 'to select' and 'answers_to_deselect' are optional, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of answer IDs, interaction between selection/deselection, or implications of 'survey_complete'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 project survey with answer IDs') and specifies what resources are involved ('answers' list and 'answers_to_deselect' list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_project_survey_by_text' by focusing on answer IDs rather than text input, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other survey-related tools like 'add_survey_answers_by_text' or 'commit_survey_draft'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing survey), compare to sibling tools like 'set_project_survey_by_text' or 'add_survey_answers_by_text', or indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred over others for survey updates.

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