Frihet MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Only the provided fields will be changed' clarifies partial update behavior (patch semantics). Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint: false), idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, but the description usefully explains how the update operation works. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral clarification. The bilingual format adds length but serves a functional purpose. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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?

For a mutation tool with good annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the partial update behavior, which is important for correct usage. The main gap is the lack of output information (no output schema), but the description doesn't need to explain return values when they're not documented elsewhere.

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, all parameters are already documented in the schema with bilingual descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing product'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from creation tools (like create_product) by specifying 'existing product'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (update_client, update_expense, etc.) beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing the product ID), doesn't compare with create_product for new products, and doesn't indicate when to use update_product versus other update tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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