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 the action ('Remove') which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting associated transformations). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse 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?

Given the complexity of a deletion operation, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like confirmation prompts, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It mentions 'hookId' and 'destinationId' implicitly by referring to 'a destination from a hook', but provides no details on their format, source, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond what the schema's property names already imply.

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 ('Remove') and the target ('a destination from a hook'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_transformation' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_destination' or 'list_destinations', which slightly limits differentiation.

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_destination' or 'list_destinations'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing hook/destination) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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