framedeck-mcp

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

Adds 'Permanently' to reinforce the destructive nature (aligns with destructiveHint=true), but fails to explain idempotency (safe retries) or openWorldHint implications (behavior when card doesn't exist) that annotations declare. Minimal behavioral context beyond the single adverb.

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 4 words with no filler. Front-loaded with the most critical qualifier ('Permanently') first. Slightly too minimal—could accommodate one sentence on alternatives without sacrificing clarity.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with complete annotations, but lacks usage context (delete vs archive), error handling details, or confirmation that the operation is irreversible beyond the single word 'Permanently'. No output schema exists, but description doesn't address return values.

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 coverage, the schema fully documents the 'id' parameter including partial match support. The description mentions no parameters, earning baseline score 3 for not duplicating well-documented schema.

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 (delete) and target resource (card/frame), clearly distinguishing from sibling 'archive_card' by emphasizing permanence. The 'frame' synonym suggests coverage of related concepts without ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use permanent deletion versus the sibling 'archive_card' (archiving), nor mentions prerequisites like confirmation requirements or active board selection. Zero explicit when/not-when guidance.

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