framedeck-mcp

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by implying a mutating but safe operation, and the explicit mention of 'unassign' clarifies scope. However, it adds no details about side effects, notification triggers, or failure modes beyond what the structured 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?

The single sentence efficiently conveys both supported operations without redundancy, placing the primary actions first and maintaining appropriate length for the tool's scope. Every word earns its place.

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 comprehensive input schema and helpful annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adequately covers the tool's dual purpose without needing to specify return values. It appropriately relies on the schema's required field indicators to show that email is optional for unassignment.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all parameters including the partial match support for IDs and the toggle logic for unassign. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or relationships beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 'Assign or unassign a user to a card' uses specific verbs (assign/unassign) and identifies the resource (card). It distinguishes from siblings like add_comment or archive_card by specifying the assignment operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from update_card which might also modify card properties.

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?

While the description indicates the tool handles both assignment and unassignment, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_card, nor does it explain prerequisites such as whether the user must already be a board member or the relationship between the email and unassign parameters.

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