Favro MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'Update[s] a card's properties' (implying mutation), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether updates are partial or complete, error conditions, or what happens when multiple fields are updated simultaneously. The description 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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points effectively for complex parameters. While comprehensive, it maintains reasonable conciseness given the parameter complexity. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though some sentences could be more direct.

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 (9 parameters, mutation operation) and absence of annotations, the description does well by thoroughly documenting parameters and stating the return value. However, it lacks behavioral context about the update operation itself (partial vs. complete updates, error handling, permissions). The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description provides excellent compensation by explaining each parameter's purpose and format. It clarifies identification methods for 'card' and 'board', documents all updatable fields, and provides detailed examples for complex parameters like 'custom_fields' and 'tasks'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('card's properties'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'rename_column' or 'tag_card' that also modify card properties in different ways.

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 like 'rename_column', 'tag_card', or 'assign_card'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing board context for certain lookups) or clarify which tool handles specific types of card modifications.

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