DollhouseMCP

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. It states the action ('activate') but doesn't explain what activation entails (e.g., does it enable functionality, change state, require permissions?), potential side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. No structural issues or redundancy are present.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what activation means, success/failure outcomes, or how it relates to sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of behavioral and contextual details makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 both parameters ('name' and 'type') well-documented in the schema, including an enum for 'type'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'name' is used for activation. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter roles or constraints.

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 ('activate') and target ('a specific element by name'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'deactivate_element' beyond the opposite action, nor does it explain what 'activate' means in this context compared to similar tools like 'edit_element' or 'create_element'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., whether the element must exist or be inactive), nor does it contrast with siblings like 'deactivate_element', 'edit_element', or 'get_active_elements'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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