codivupload-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List Playlists' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., paginated list, array), any rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 'List Playlists' is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks necessary details like scope or context, making it inefficient rather than concise. Every word earns its place, but more words are needed for clarity.

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 (a list operation with potential filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Playlists' refers to (agency vs. integrations), the return format, or behavioral aspects like pagination. For a tool in this context, it should provide more information to be adequately complete.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the 'profile_id' parameter. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with high schema coverage and only 1 parameter, this is acceptable. The baseline score of 4 reflects that the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 'List Playlists' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Playlists'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of playlists (agency playlists vs. YouTube integrations playlists) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_agency_playlists_id' (which gets a specific playlist) or 'get_integrations_youtube_playlists' (which lists YouTube playlists). This makes it vague in 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it over 'get_agency_playlists_id' (for a specific playlist) or 'get_integrations_youtube_playlists' (for YouTube-specific playlists), nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction.

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