framedeck-mcp

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

Adds 'existing card' prerequisite and 'one or more' cardinality context. However, given openWorldHint=true, it fails to clarify whether non-existent labels are auto-created or cause errors. Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature.

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 7-word sentence with zero redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient, though minimalism leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter operation with full schema coverage and annotations, but lacks error handling context (e.g., card not found, invalid labels) and implications of openWorldHint for label resolution.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Card ID or title', 'Label names or IDs'). Description reinforces the array cardinality ('one or more') but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond the schema.

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 ('Add'), resource ('labels'), and target ('existing card'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'create_label' (which creates label definitions vs. attaching them to cards), potentially causing confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus 'remove_label_from_card', 'set_card_color', or prerequisite steps like ensuring labels exist first. No mention of idempotent behavior (though covered by annotations).

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