framedeck-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: the fallback logic to Idea Pool when no board is specified. However, with idempotentHint=false and no output schema, it fails to disclose that duplicate calls create multiple cards or what the return value contains (e.g., card ID). The openWorldHint=true annotation is also unexplained.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. The first establishes the core action; the second immediately clarifies the default board behavior. Every word serves a purpose and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created card ID or object), but it omits this. While annotations cover safety (destructive/read-only), the openWorldHint implications and idempotency behavior remain undisclosed, leaving gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the board parameter's fallback behavior ('uses active board... if omitted'), but this largely restates the schema description rather than adding new semantic depth like validation rules or format examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Create a new card/frame' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing from siblings like create_board or create_column. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create_multiple_cards (batch creation), which is relevant given the sibling tool list.

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 phrase 'quick idea capture' implies a use case for the fallback behavior, providing implicit context for when to use the Idea Pool default. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this single-card tool versus create_multiple_cards, or prerequisites like requiring an active board vs. explicit board parameter.

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