Cozi MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool edits text but does not cover critical aspects such as whether this requires authentication, if it's a destructive mutation, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (editing an item) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, response format, or error conditions, which are crucial for safe and effective use, leaving the agent with incomplete 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (itemId, listId, text) with their purposes. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter 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 ('Edit') and resource ('text of an existing item in a Cozi list'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'cozi_add_item' or 'cozi_remove_item', which involve adding or removing items rather than editing text, so it falls short of 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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing item), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'cozi_mark_item_complete', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit help.

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