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 clarifies that updates are partial ('Only the provided fields will be changed'), which isn't covered by annotations like idempotentHint=true or destructiveHint=false. This helps agents understand the tool's mutation behavior. No contradictions with annotations exist; the description's update action aligns with readOnlyHint=false.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the key information ('Update an existing expense. Only the provided fields will be changed.') in the first sentence. The bilingual repetition adds no functional value but doesn't detract from clarity. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential behavioral context without waste.

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 (mutation with 7 parameters), annotations provide safety context (non-destructive, idempotent), and schema covers all parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It adds partial-update behavior, which is crucial for usage. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning response format or error conditions, leaving a minor gap.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'id' as Expense ID, 'amount' in EUR). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing expense'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_expense' by specifying it modifies existing records rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_client' or 'update_invoice' beyond the expense focus.

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 'existing expense' and 'only the provided fields will be changed,' suggesting this is for partial updates rather than full replacements. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'create_expense' or other update tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the required ID parameter.

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