Thenvoi MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a removal operation (implying mutation/destructive action) but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether removal is reversible, what happens to chat history, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise with zero wasted words. It states the purpose in one clear sentence, then lists parameters with brief explanations in a clean, structured format. Every element serves a purpose.

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 destructive operation with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, for a mutation tool that removes participants, more behavioral context would be helpful given the lack of annotations.

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?

The description explicitly lists both parameters with brief explanations ('The chat room ID' and 'ID of participant to remove'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. While it doesn't specify format requirements or constraints, it provides basic semantic understanding of what each parameter represents.

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 a participant') and resource ('from a chat room'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_agent_chat_participant', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 'remove_agent_chat_participant' or what permissions might be required. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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