zhook-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 states it 'creates' something, implying a write operation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like what 'active' default means in practice. The agent lacks critical context for proper invocation.

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 50% (only 'name' and 'code' have descriptions), and the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'JSONata transformation' which relates to the 'code' parameter, but this is already implied in the schema. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers half the parameters, and the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented ones like 'hookId'.

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 ('Create a new JSONata transformation') and the target resource ('for a hook'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_transformation' or 'list_transformations', which would require a more detailed comparison of functionality.

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 like 'update_transformation' or 'list_transformations'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing hook) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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