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 confirmation requirement ('requires confirmation', 'confirm=True'), safety measures ('prevent accidental deletion'), irreversible nature ('cannot be undone'), and pre-deletion details ('shows range details before deletion'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the critical destructive aspects well.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example, Safety) and front-loads the core purpose. Most sentences earn their place, though the safety section could be more concise. The example is helpful but slightly verbose. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a destructive operation.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, usage, parameters, safety, and irreversible nature. It lacks details on error conditions or return value structure ('Deletion result with confirmation details' is vague), but covers the essential aspects given the complexity. The example partially compensates for missing output schema.

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. It clearly explains both parameters: 'user_id' as 'User ID whose range to delete' and 'confirm' as 'Must be set to True to actually delete (safety measure)'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints for user_id (e.g., string pattern).

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 specific action ('delete a specific user's range') and resource ('range by user ID'), distinguishing it from generic deletion tools like 'delete_range' or 'delete_ranges_by_status' in the sibling list. It explicitly notes the selective nature ('rather than destroying all ranges'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('selectively delete a single range by user ID') and when not to ('rather than destroying all ranges'). It includes a practical example showing a two-step process: first check with 'get_range_by_user', then confirm deletion. This clearly differentiates it from alternatives and outlines prerequisites.

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