langfuse-mcp-java

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but description doesn't explain what gets destroyed/overwritten or warn about non-idempotent behavior. The 'provide only fields you want to change' claim suggests PATCH semantics while schema enforces PUT semantics (all required), creating confusion about actual behavior.

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?

Brief and front-loaded with purpose. However, extreme brevity given the destructive nature and schema complexity leaves critical gaps; the partial-update claim appears in sentence 3 without qualification.

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 mutation tool (destructiveHint=true) with 7 parameters, the description is dangerously incomplete. No output schema exists, yet description fails to clarify the destructive scope, doesn't reconcile the partial-update claim with required schema constraints, and omits warnings about data loss.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description introduces misleading semantics by claiming partial updates are possible when the schema marks all 7 parameters required. The categoriesJson format note merely repeats schema content rather than adding value.

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?

Clear verb 'Updates' and resource 'score config' with specific target (existing). Distinguishes from sibling create_score_config by targeting existing items, though could clarify what a score config represents.

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?

States 'configId is required' and suggests partial updates ('provide only the fields you want to change'), but fails to explain when to use update vs create_score_config, doesn't address destructiveHint=true implications, and the partial update instruction contradicts the schema's all-fields-required constraint.

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