@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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and adds valuable context about pricing. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., what happens if the key doesn't exist), authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides critical pricing information. There's zero wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality and pricing but lacks important context. It doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, error responses, or the implications of deletion. The pricing information is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral details expected for a mutation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'key' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('KV value by key'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'deva_storage_kv_get' (read) and 'deva_storage_kv_set' (write). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage context through the pricing information ('1₭ per write'), suggesting this is a paid operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deva_storage_kv_set' for updates or 'deva_storage_file_delete' for file operations, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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