codivupload-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 but fails completely. 'Delete Post' implies a destructive mutation but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary context for a destructive operation. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimal text fails to convey critical information about a tool that permanently removes data.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how this differs from similar deletion tools. The agent would be operating this tool blindly with potentially serious consequences.

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 with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Post ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no value.

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 'Delete Post' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it clearly indicates the action (delete) and resource (post), it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'delete_agency_media_id' or 'delete_agency_profiles_id' which perform similar deletion operations on different resources. The description lacks specificity about what type of post is being deleted or the system context.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'delete_agency_media_id' or 'deletewebhook'. The agent receives no contextual information about appropriate use cases or constraints.

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