framedeck-mcp

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

With annotations declaring idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description's burden is reduced. It adds minimal context beyond the tool name, though it does clarify the scope is 'from a card' (not system-wide deletion). It fails to mention idempotency, error cases (e.g., label not present), or side effects, but does not contradict the safety profile indicated by 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?

The description is extremely efficient at six words with no redundancy. While appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter operation, it borders on being overly terse—functioning as a sentence fragment rather than providing rich guidance—but achieves clarity without waste.

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 the simple operation, complete parameter schema, and rich annotations covering safety (idempotent, non-destructive), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks output expectations, error handling details, or domain context that would help an agent understand failure modes.

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 input parameters are fully documented in the schema itself ('Card ID or title' and 'Label name or ID'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning, parameter relationships, or format examples beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 provides a clear verb ('Remove') and resource ('label') with contextual scope ('from a card'), clarifying this removes the association rather than deleting the label globally. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'add_labels_to_card' or clarify when to use this versus editing labels.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'add_labels_to_card'), nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the label must already exist on the card. Usage context is entirely absent.

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