Ludus FastMCP

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('Delete all ranges'), safety mechanisms ('confirm=True', 'preview of what will be deleted'), and protection logic ('Explicitly protects specified user ranges'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling or performance impact.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example, Safety) that make it easy to parse. Every sentence adds value: the opening statement sets purpose, sections provide necessary details, and the safety section addresses critical concerns 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 the tool's complexity (destructive operation with safety measures) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, safety, and provides an example. However, it doesn't detail the return value ('Deletion results' is vague) or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for a destructive tool.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains both parameters thoroughly: 'keep_user_ids' is described as 'List of user IDs whose ranges should be KEPT (not deleted)' and 'confirm' as 'Must be set to True to actually delete (safety measure)'. The example further clarifies usage with concrete values.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('ranges'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it deletes ranges except those belonging to specified users. It explicitly differentiates from tools like 'delete_range' or 'delete_range_by_user' by focusing on selective deletion based on user IDs.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use ('Useful for cleaning up test/temporary ranges while keeping production ones'), includes a safety measure ('confirm=True to actually delete'), and implicitly suggests alternatives by specifying what it does not delete (ranges of specified users). This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over other deletion tools.

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