Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'admin only' for the optional user_id parameter, which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive mutation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context 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 appropriately concise with three brief sections (purpose, args, returns). It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted text, but it borders on under-specification.

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 complexity (mutation tool with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds minimal semantics: 'config' is a 'Range configuration object' and 'user_id' is 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. This doesn't explain the structure of 'config', what properties it accepts, or examples of valid values, leaving significant gaps for a tool with nested objects.

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 states the tool 'Update range configuration' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'range configuration' entails or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_range_config' or 'export_range_config_to_yaml', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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. With many sibling tools related to range operations (e.g., 'get_range_config', 'clone_range', 'delete_range'), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for this update operation.

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