airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false). The description adds minimal context beyond this by specifying the target ('installed extension from a dashboard'), but doesn't elaborate on consequences (e.g., data loss, permissions required) or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive nature (per annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on outcomes (e.g., what happens after removal, error conditions, or confirmation messages). It covers the basic action but doesn't fully address the tool's complexity in a mutative context.

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 100%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (appId, installationId, debug). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between them or typical usage patterns.

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 ('Remove') and target ('an installed extension from a dashboard'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_field' or 'delete_view', which also perform removal operations on different resources.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an installed extension), exclusions, or related tools like 'uninstall_extension' (if it existed) or 'update_extension_state' for disabling instead of removing.

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