Vectra AI MCP Server

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 mentions the tool is for deletion/unassignment and notes potential failure with 'Raises: Exception: If deleting assignment fails,' adding some context. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects, which are important for a destructive operation.

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 the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and return/error information in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, 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 the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output/errors well. However, it could be more complete by addressing behavioral aspects like auth needs or side effects, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the assignment_id ('Use list_assignments... to fetch assignment IDs'), providing practical guidance beyond the schema's technical definition, which justifies a higher score.

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 with a specific verb ('Unassign or delete') and resource ('investigation assignment by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_assignments or create_assignment. It explicitly mentions what the tool does beyond just restating the name.

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 by stating 'Use list_assignments and list_assignments_for_user to fetch assignment IDs,' indicating prerequisites and distinguishing it from alternative tools for fetching IDs. It clearly sets the context for usage.

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