Context Engine 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 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are confirmation prompts, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like whether deletion is permanent, what confirmation is needed, what happens on success/failure, or how this relates to other plan management tools. Given the complexity of destructive operations and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear 'plan_id' parameter documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a saved plan from storage'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_index' or 'scrub_secrets' which might also involve deletion operations, nor does it specify what type of plan is being deleted (e.g., execution plan, review plan).

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. There are multiple sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., 'clear_index' for clearing data, 'rollback_plan' for undoing plans, 'scrub_secrets' for removing sensitive data), but the description doesn't indicate when deletion of a saved plan is appropriate versus these other operations.

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