airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, stating what gets changed but not addressing permissions, side effects, or response format. 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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action and target, 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 tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters), rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or error cases, leaving gaps in completeness for agent invocation.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters, including appId, viewId, rowHeight with enum values, and debug. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('Change') and target resource ('row height of a grid view'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_view_filters' or 'update_view_description' beyond the obvious row height focus, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a grid view), when not to use it (e.g., for non-grid views), or refer to related sibling tools for other view modifications.

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