Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool clears all permissions, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't specify if this is reversible, what permissions are affected, or any side effects (e.g., impact on active users). The mention of 'admin only' for user_id adds some context about authorization needs, but overall behavioral details are sparse for a mutation tool.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no redundant information. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Clear result'), which slightly reduces efficiency, but overall the structure is effective and front-loaded.

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 (a mutation operation clearing permissions), the description is moderately complete. It has an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and sparse behavioral details, it lacks context on safety, reversibility, or error handling. The parameter documentation helps, but overall it's adequate with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter: 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the parameter's purpose and restriction. However, it doesn't elaborate on format (e.g., expected ID structure) or default behavior when null, leaving some gaps. With one parameter partially documented, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Clear all range access permissions.' This is a specific verb ('Clear') + resource ('range access permissions'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'revoke_range_access' or 'get_range_access', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't clarify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'revoke_range_access' (which might target specific permissions rather than clearing all). No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are stated.

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