mcp-builder-mcp

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 describes the action ('Clear workflow state and start over'), which implies a destructive reset, but does not specify if this is reversible, what data is lost, or any permissions required. It adds some context about post-reset steps, but lacks details on error handling or side effects, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, and it is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive reset with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and the next steps, but does not cover potential risks, confirmation prompts, or error scenarios. For a tool that clears state, more behavioral context would be beneficial, but it meets basic requirements.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant parameter information, meeting the baseline for zero parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('workflow state'), and indicates the outcome ('start over'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning a specific use case ('when the user wants to use new API docs'), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is not tautological and is adequately specific.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('when the user wants to use new API docs') and outlines the next steps ('ask the user to provide new API docs and run validate_openapi'). It implies usage by linking to a sibling tool (validate_openapi) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name all alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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