Kratos-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. 'Update PRD content' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 very concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it may be overly terse, as it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose, but it doesn't waste words.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (content, feature, section) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, which aligns with the baseline score for 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 'Update PRD content' clearly states the action (update) and resource (PRD content), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what PRD stands for or what type of content is involved, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'prd_fetch' or other content-update tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing PRD or specific permissions, or when to choose 'prd_update' over other tools like 'concept_save' or 'memory_save' for content management.

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