framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that this creates a 'subtask', implying mutation, but does not elaborate on the non-idempotent behavior (creating duplicates) or openWorldHint implications beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. The action and target are front-loaded, and every word serves a purpose. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter input with complete schema coverage and existing behavioral annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks mention of return values, error conditions (e.g., invalid card_id), or side effects, leaving gaps in contextual completeness.

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% (both 'card_id' and 'text' are well-documented in the schema). The description reinforces these concepts ('card', 'subtask text') but does not add additional semantic detail or usage syntax beyond the schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('subtask/checklist item') and target ('card'). It adequately distinguishes from siblings like 'add_comment' or 'add_labels_to_card' by specifying 'checklist item', though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'toggle_checklist_item'.

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 (e.g., when to add a checklist item vs. a comment) or prerequisites (e.g., card must exist). It merely restates the action without contextual usage criteria.

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