Frihet MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it emphasizes permanence ('This action cannot be undone'), which aligns with destructiveHint=true but provides additional warning. Annotations cover readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the description complements these by highlighting irreversibility, though it could mention idempotency or other traits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The bilingual repetition adds redundancy but does not waste space unnecessarily. It could be slightly more streamlined by avoiding duplication, but it remains efficient and clear.

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 (destructive operation with one parameter) and annotations providing safety and behavioral hints, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks output schema details, but for a deletion tool, the focus on permanence and resource specificity is adequate. Minor improvements could include mentioning idempotency or error cases.

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 the parameter 'id' documented as 'Expense ID / ID del gasto.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format or constraints. Baseline is 3 since the schema fully covers the parameter semantics.

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 ('permanently delete') and resource ('an expense by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_client' or 'delete_invoice' by specifying the expense resource. The bilingual format reinforces this specificity without ambiguity.

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 implies usage context by stating 'permanently delete an expense by its ID,' which suggests it should be used for deletion of expenses specifically. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'update_expense' or 'get_expense,' nor does it provide exclusions, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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