airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context about the return value ('Returns the block ID needed for installation') and the purpose ('register custom extensions before installing them'), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the action and outcome, the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted language or redundancy.

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 creation tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects, error conditions, or the relationship to other extension management tools beyond just 'install_extension'.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra semantic context.

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 ('Create a new extension'), target resource ('in an Airtable base'), and outcome ('Returns the block ID needed for installation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'install_extension' by specifying this is for registration before installation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to register custom extensions before installing them'), which implicitly distinguishes it from 'install_extension'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention all relevant alternatives like 'duplicate_extension' or 'update_extension_state'.

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