Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_database_recordB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the destructive and irreversible nature via 'permanently purges', which is critical behavioral information. However, with no annotations available, it should have covered additional traits like error handling, side effects, or required authentication, but it does not.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence that directly and efficiently states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description is inadequate for a destructive operation. It does not clarify how the record is identified, what the required input is, or any safety precautions beyond 'permanently'. The unclear required parameters compound the gap, making the tool risky to invoke blindly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the recordId parameter. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning, and the fact that required parameters are 0 is confusing and unexplained.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('purges') and resource ('record from the database'). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool apply_deal_discount, but the names make the distinction obvious.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned. The description offers no usage direction beyond stating the action.

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

• apply_deal_discountB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Applies a percentage discount'. It fails to reveal side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or the behavior when the deal is not active.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is one sentence long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simplicity of the two-parameter tool, the description is minimally acceptable but lacks context around preconditions, effects, and return behavior. There are no annotations or output schema to compensate for these missing details.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds the meaning that 'discountPercentage' is a percentage, which is a slight improvement over the bare schema. However, it does not explain valid ranges, the format of 'dealId', or preconditions like the deal needing to be active.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'Applies' and clearly identifies the resource ('a percentage discount to an active deal'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'delete_database_record', which performs a different action.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the deal needing to be active. It only restates the action without any contextual usage direction.

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