framedeck-mcp

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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the voice input use case and the active board fallback behavior. However, it does not address the idempotentHint=false implication (repeated calls create duplicates) or the openWorldHint=true behavior, which are important for a batch creation tool.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences with no waste. The first sentence establishes purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third specifies default behavior. Information is appropriately 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?

While the schema and annotations cover input parameters and basic safety (non-destructive), the description lacks information about return values or success/failure behavior. Without an output schema, this omission leaves a gap for an agent determining how to handle the creation results.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters including the nested card objects. The description mentions the board default behavior ('uses active board if board is not specified'), which aligns with but does not significantly extend the schema documentation. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific action ('Create multiple cards/frames'), the resource type (cards/frames), and distinguishes from the singular 'create_card' sibling by emphasizing 'at once' and 'batch' processing. It uses specific verbs and resources without tautology.

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 clear context for when to use ('Ideal for batch idea capture via voice'), implying the batch vs. single-use case. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative (create_card) or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for single card creation).

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