framedeck-mcp

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

While annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world implications, the description adds no context about what gets created, side effects, or the meaning of 'openWorld' in this domain (e.g., external time tracking integration). The description merely restates the tool name without behavioral elaboration.

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?

The description consists of a single efficient sentence with no redundant words, immediately conveying the core action. However, appropriate conciseness for a write operation requires more content than five words to adequately inform agent behavior.

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?

Given this is a write operation with open-world implications and no output schema, the description lacks critical context about the created artifact, validation rules, or expected outcomes. It relies entirely on the schema and annotations without addressing the tool's transactional 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description offers no additional semantic context, examples, or format constraints (e.g., positive hours only) beyond the structured schema fields, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 uses a specific verb ('logs') and identifies the target resource (time spent) and scope (on a card). However, it does not explain what 'logging' entails (creating a record vs. updating a field) nor distinguishes this from similar descriptive actions like 'add_comment'.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites such as card existence, or whether multiple logs aggregate or overwrite. Users must infer usage solely from the parameter names and schema.

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