mcp-vtenext

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'adds' a note/comment, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a mutation tool.

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 in Italian that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding the note (e.g., returns success confirmation, the created note ID, or error details), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. For a 2-parameter write operation, more context is needed.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema ('opportunita_id' and 'testo'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format examples beyond the schema's 'es. 13x42' or provide context about note length/formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Aggiunge' - adds) and the resource ('una nota/commento a un'opportunità' - a note/comment to an opportunity). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_opportunita' or 'update_opportunita' by focusing specifically on adding notes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential note-related tools that might exist.

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 existing opportunity), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_opportunita' which might also modify opportunity data.

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