@deva-me/mcp-server

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 indicates a mutation operation ('Update') but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Update profile fields') and adds necessary context ('for the authenticated agent', 'free/profile endpoint') without any wasted words.

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 (mutation with flexible inputs) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and input flexibility but misses behavioral details like side effects or return values, which are crucial for safe invocation.

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 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds context by specifying 'Any supported profile fields accepted by Deva API', which helps clarify the flexible input structure, aligning with the schema's 'additionalProperties: true'.

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 ('Update') and target ('profile fields for the authenticated agent'), specifying it's for the 'free/profile endpoint'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deva_agent_me_get' (read) and 'deva_agent_register' (create), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives like 'deva_agent_profile_get'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It implies usage for updating authenticated agent profiles but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or exclusions (e.g., when to use other profile-related tools).

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