armavita-quo-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unspecified fields (preserved or cleared), or what the response looks like. 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 a single, clear sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation and is front-loaded with essential information.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during the update (e.g., validation, error conditions), what the return value contains, or how to handle complex nested structures like phoneNumbers and emails arrays. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format requirements, constraints, or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing contact by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_contact' beyond the obvious 'update' vs 'create' distinction, nor does it mention what fields can be updated compared to other tools like 'get_contact'.

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 like 'create_contact' for new contacts or 'delete_contact' for removal. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing contact ID), nor does it specify which fields are optional versus required beyond the schema's 'id' requirement.

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