framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, confirming this is a safe write operation. The description adds the active board default behavior but omits explanation of openWorldHint=true implications (external side effects) or the idempotentHint=false consequences (duplicate creation on retries).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Efficient length, though the second sentence repeats information already present in the schema parameter description, slightly wasting space.

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 3-parameter creation tool with good schema coverage and safety annotations. However, it omits behavioral details like uniqueness constraints, what constitutes an 'active board,' or the nature of the created resource's identifier return value (though no output schema exists to require this).

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% coverage with all parameters documented. The description's second sentence ('Uses active board if not specified') is redundant with the schema's board parameter description ('uses active board if omitted'), adding no new semantic 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?

States specific action (create) and resource (stage), though uses 'stage' instead of 'column' which conflicts with the tool name and sibling tools like list_columns/delete_column without clarifying they are synonyms. Lacks explicit differentiation from related creation tools like create_board or create_card.

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?

Provides guidance on the optional 'board' parameter fallback ('Uses active board if not specified'), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives compared to siblings like create_label or create_card.

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