Frihet MCP Server

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description explicitly warns 'This action cannot be undone,' clarifying the permanence of the deletion. This enhances the agent's understanding of the tool's irreversible nature, which isn't fully captured by annotations alone.

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 and front-loaded with the essential information in the first sentence. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy, but each language version is concise and directly supports the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 comprehensive annotations and a simple parameter schema, the description provides adequate completeness. It covers the irreversible nature of the action and identifies the target resource. The main gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by emphasizing the permanent deletion outcome.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description mentions 'by its ID' but doesn't add any additional semantic context about parameter format, validation, or examples beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the specific action ('permanently delete') and target resource ('a product by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_client' or 'delete_invoice' by specifying the product resource type. The bilingual format reinforces the core purpose 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('permanently delete a product by its ID') and includes a critical warning ('This action cannot be undone'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'update_product' for modification instead of deletion.

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