Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's an atomic operation (important transactional guarantee), requires authentication (security context), and involves both cancellation and creation (destructive nature). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the original order doesn't exist.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence explains the core operation with important qualifiers ('atomic'), and the second provides critical authentication requirement. Every word earns its place with front-loaded essential information.

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 explaining the atomic nature and authentication requirement. However, it doesn't describe return values or error scenarios, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool that modifies financial orders.

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 four parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('replace an existing order') with precise operational details ('cancel old and place new in one atomic operation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cancel_order' and 'place_order' which perform separate functions.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'replace an existing order' and mentioning authentication, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manually canceling and placing orders separately. No explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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