Sharesight MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting user account status), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after removal (e.g., success confirmation, error conditions), whether it affects related data, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'apply_coupon_code'. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools when the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.

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 ('Removes') and target resource ('the coupon code from the current user'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_coupon_rate' or 'revoke_api_access', which also perform deletion operations on different resources.

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 like 'delete_coupon_rate' or 'show_coupon_code'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a coupon code must exist first) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.

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