reclaim-mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'elevates to high priority' and 'triggers rescheduling', implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions, side effects, or whether changes are reversible. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the action and parameter but lacks behavioral details like side effects or error conditions, making it minimally adequate.

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 adds value by explaining 'task_id' as 'The task ID to prioritize'. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, such as format or constraints, so a 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 verb ('prioritize') and resource ('a task'), specifying it elevates to high priority and triggers rescheduling. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update_task' which might also affect priority, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_task' or 'restart_task', which might also affect task priority or scheduling. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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