framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: cards are not deleted but moved to the first remaining stage (cascading behavior). Does not contradict annotations.

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 with zero waste. First sentence states the action; second sentence fronts the critical side effect (card movement). Every word earns its place.

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?

For a destructive operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary risk (card relocation). Annotations handle safety profile (destructive, idempotent). Missing advanced details like error conditions or auth requirements, but sufficient for the complexity level.

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 ('Column/stage name or ID', 'Board name or ID'). Description reinforces the stage/column terminology equivalence and implies the board parameter's purpose, but does not add format details, examples, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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 'Delete' paired with resource 'stage/column' and scope 'from a board'. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings like create_column or delete_card by specifying the target entity and cascading effect on cards.

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 implied guidance through the warning that 'Cards in this stage will be moved to the first remaining stage,' allowing users to infer when not to use it. However, lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance or prerequisites (e.g., permissions).

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