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 updates, which isn't covered by annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation, but the description enhances understanding of update semantics without contradiction.

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 context. The bilingual format (English/Spanish) is efficient for clarity without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the update action and partial update behavior, but lacks information on error conditions, response format, or side effects. Annotations provide safety hints, yet more context (e.g., what 'status' changes trigger) would improve completeness for the agent.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain field interactions or constraints). This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but no extra value is provided.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing quote.' It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('quote'), and distinguishes it from create/delete operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update_* tools (like update_invoice or update_client), which prevents a perfect score.

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 (e.g., needing an existing quote ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new quotes), or refer to sibling tools like create_quote or get_quote for related operations. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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