airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (mutable, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds some context by specifying the action is about enabling/disabling, but doesn't mention permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. 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 any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent 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 annotations provide good behavioral coverage and the schema fully describes parameters, the description is adequate as a starting point. However, for a mutation tool with no output schema, it could better explain what happens upon success/failure or typical return values, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 fully documents all parameters (appId, installationId, state, debug). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or typical usage patterns, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Enable or disable') and the resource ('an extension installation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'install_extension' or 'remove_extension' that also manage extension states, which prevents a perfect score.

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 'install_extension' or 'remove_extension'. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for enabling/disabling extensions, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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