framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations cover idempotency and safety (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds crucial behavioral context that this sets implicit state affecting subsequent operations, which is essential for an agent to understand side effects. No contradiction with 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 action, second sentence explains scope/side effects. Front-loaded with the essential verb and object. No redundant phrases.

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?

Appropriate for a simple 1-parameter state-setting tool with good annotations. Explains the immediate action and side effects clearly. Could improve by mentioning persistence scope (session vs permanent) or validation behavior for invalid boards.

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% description coverage for the single 'board' parameter. The description mentions 'production context' which semantically aligns with the parameter accepting production names, but mostly mirrors the schema's 'Board/production name or ID' description. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Set' with clear resource 'active board/production context'. The mention of 'production context' distinguishes this from create_board and links to graduate_to_production sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_active_board or when to prefer explicit board parameters.

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 second sentence explicitly states the tool's effect on other tools ('other tools will use this board by default'), which implicitly guides when to use it (to establish session context) and indicates the alternative (specifying board explicitly in other calls). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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