framedeck-mcp

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

While annotations declare write/non-destructive status, the description adds no context about behavioral traits like the idempotentHint=false implication (duplicates allowed?) or openWorldHint=true side effects. It also fails to disclose the scope (board-level vs global) or return value structure.

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?

Extremely concise at three words. Front-loaded with verb-first structure and no redundancy. However, extreme brevity sacrifices necessary behavioral context, preventing a score of 5.

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 creation tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations. Lacks depth regarding output format, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or scope, but sufficient for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions ('Label name', 'Hex color'). The description 'Create a new label/tag' adds no additional parameter semantics (syntax, validation rules, or examples), which matches baseline expectations when schema is comprehensive.

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?

Specific verb 'Create' + resource 'label/tag' clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'add_labels_to_card' (which applies existing labels), potentially causing confusion about whether this creates the label entity or an association.

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 provided on when to use this vs. 'list_labels' (to check existence first) or prerequisites like active board selection. No mention of uniqueness constraints or idempotency behavior implied by the schema.

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