Thenvoi 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 this is an update operation but doesn't mention whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. The description lacks crucial behavioral context 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are efficiently formatted in a clear 'Args:' section. While very concise, every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks important behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but other gaps remain.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. While the schema has 0% description coverage (only titles 'First Name' and 'Last Name'), the description explicitly explains that both parameters are optional and represent 'New first name' and 'New last name' respectively. This adds significant value by clarifying the purpose and optional nature of each parameter.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('current user's profile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_user_profile' by specifying it's an update operation rather than a retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential profile-related tools beyond what's obvious from the name.

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. While it's clear this updates the user's own profile (unlike potentially updating other users' profiles), there's no mention of prerequisites, authentication requirements, or when to choose this over other profile management tools. The sibling tools list includes 'get_user_profile' but no explicit comparison is made.

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