Create Structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool creates a file structure, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions or side effects are involved, where files are created, or what the return behavior is.

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 two short clauses with zero waste, and the deprecation notice plus replacement tool are front-loaded. An agent gets the most important information immediately.

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 deprecated tool, the description sufficiently signals that it should be avoided in favor of mcp_m7_cycle. However, it remains thin for an agent that must invoke it anyway: there is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of the file-structure side effects or route semantics.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters such as task_id, status, version, and description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify the important 'route' enum values (light, medium, heavy), but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create M7 file structure for a task.' It also clearly marks the tool as deprecated and names the replacement, so an agent can distinguish its status from active siblings. The term 'M7 file structure' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but the core action is clear.

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 explicitly states '[DEPRECATED v5.0] Use mcp_m7_cycle instead,' which gives a direct alternative and effectively tells the agent not to use this tool for new work. This is exactly the routing information needed for a deprecated tool.

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