framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations declare non-destructive write (readOnly:false, destructive:false, openWorld:true). Description adds valuable behavioral specifics: the side effect of moving the original card to 'In Production' stage and the auto-archive lifecycle detail ('auto-archived after the configured days'), which is critical operational context.

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 tightly constructed sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action (Promote), followed by critical side effects and defaults. Every clause 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?

Appropriately complete for a workflow transition tool. Covers the conceptual model (Idea Pool vs Production), default stage values, and lifecycle side effects (archiving). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the transformation behavior.

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, but description adds domain context by mapping the 'stages' parameter to the concrete default production pipeline shown in parentheses: '(Idea → Scripting → Filming → Editing → Published)'. This enriches the semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Custom stage names'.

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 'Promote' targeting a clear resource ('idea from the Idea Pool') into a specific destination ('dedicated production'). Distinguishes from generic siblings like create_card or move_card by referencing the specific Idea Pool → Production workflow and naming the full stage pipeline.

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?

Describes the outcome (moving card to 'In Production', auto-archiving), which implies the use case (graduating approved ideas), but lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., distinguishing from simple move_card or duplicate_card).

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