Frihet MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it emphasizes permanence and irreversibility ('This action cannot be undone'), which complements the destructiveHint=true annotation. It doesn't contradict annotations, as destructiveHint aligns with deletion, and idempotentHint=true is consistent with typical delete operations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action and includes a critical warning in two concise sentences (with bilingual repetition). The bilingual format adds length but doesn't reduce clarity; it could be more streamlined by avoiding duplication, but the essential information is efficiently presented.

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 destructive tool with good annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and simple schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, irreversibility, and parameter intent. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, but for a delete operation, this is often implied. It could improve by mentioning error cases or confirmation steps.

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 the 'id' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond implying it's for invoice identification, matching the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('permanently delete') and target resource ('an invoice by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_client' or 'delete_product' by specifying the invoice resource. The bilingual format reinforces but doesn't detract from the clarity.

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 through 'permanently' and 'cannot be undone,' suggesting it should be used cautiously for irreversible deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_invoice' or 'search_invoices,' or mention prerequisites such as needing the invoice ID.

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