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. 'Create Profile' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about how to properly invoke and interpret results from this 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 extremely concise at just two words. While this represents severe under-specification in terms of content, from a pure conciseness perspective it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, and the structure is straightforward (though incomplete).

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 (creating profiles) with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'profile' is in this context, what fields beyond username might be relevant, what the tool returns, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably creates important agency resources, this level of documentation is insufficient.

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 ('Desired username for the new profile'), so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. With 0 parameters needing semantic clarification from the description, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as 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 'Create Profile' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'post_agency_profiles'. It doesn't specify what kind of profile (agency profile) or provide any meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'post_agency_media' or 'post_agency_playlists'. While it indicates a creation action, it lacks the specificity needed for clear understanding.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools with 'create' or 'post' actions (e.g., createpost, post_agency_media, post_agency_playlists), but no indication of what distinguishes this profile creation tool from those other creation tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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