Storyblok 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 states this is an update operation but doesn't mention whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to unspecified fields. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Each parameter explanation is brief and focused. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated with the main description text.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but lacks crucial information about behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and usage context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by providing clear semantic explanations for all 7 parameters. Each parameter gets a brief but meaningful description that adds value beyond the schema's type information, explaining what each field represents and their optional nature.

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 verb 'updates' and the resource 'existing field plugin', specifying it operates 'in the specified context'. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_field_plugin' by focusing on updates rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_extension'.

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 like authentication, permissions, or when to choose this over other update tools. The only implied usage is for modifying field plugins, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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