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. It mentions marking a step as failed but doesn't explain what this action entails—whether it updates plan status, triggers notifications, affects dependent steps, or has side effects like logging. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 front-loads the core action ('Mark a step as failed') and adds necessary context ('with error details') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what happens after marking a step as failed—whether the plan continues, stops, or requires manual intervention—nor does it explain the implications of parameters like 'skip_dependents'. Given the complexity of workflow management, more contextual information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'error details' relate to the 'error' parameter, but it doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., how 'retry', 'skip', and 'skip_dependents' affect workflow). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Mark a step as failed') and specifies what information is needed ('with error details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'complete_step' or 'start_step' in terms of workflow state management, 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 like 'complete_step' or 'skip' parameters, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing plan or step. Without context about workflow states or error handling strategies, agents 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.