armavita-quo-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. It describes the core action (sending SMS) and format requirements (E.164), but lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, whether messages are queued or sent immediately, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded (core purpose first) and zero waste. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does and key format requirements, the second clarifies the 'from' field options. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 (a mutation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter formats but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases) and output details. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning E.164 format for 'to' and clarifying that 'from' can be a phone number ID or E.164 number, which slightly reinforces the schema but doesn't provide new semantic insights. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('send an SMS text message'), resource ('from a Quo phone number to a recipient'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_message' or 'list_messages' which are read operations, not send operations. It uses precise terminology like 'SMS text message' and 'E.164 format' to define scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to send an SMS text message') and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_message' (for reading) or 'create_contact' (for contact management). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for voice calls or other message types) or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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