airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context by explaining this is a specialized wrapper for update_field_config, which helps the agent understand the underlying behavior. 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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial context about its relationship to another tool. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main action.

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 mutation tool with good annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's specialized nature and relationship to update_field_config. The main gap is no output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('update the formula text'), resource ('existing formula field'), and scope ('shorthand for update_field_config with type "formula"'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'update_field_config' by explaining it's a specialized version for formula fields only.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('shorthand for update_field_config with type "formula"'), providing clear guidance on the alternative (update_field_config) and the specific context (when updating formula fields). This helps the agent choose between similar tools.

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