framedeck-mcp

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

Aligns with annotations (non-destructive clear operation matches destructiveHint=false, idempotent nature implied by 'Set'). Adds 'visual categorization' context. However, it fails to mention the partial matching behavior disclosed in the schema parameter description, or open-world implications (what happens if multiple cards match the partial title).

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?

Single efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb ('Set or clear'). Every phrase earns its place: operation modes, target, and purpose are all covered without redundancy.

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 2-parameter mutation tool. Annotations cover behavioral safety (idempotent, non-destructive, non-readonly) and schema covers parameter details fully. Lacks only error-handling context (e.g., what happens with ambiguous partial matches) to be a 5.

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, baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'clear' capability mentioned in the color parameter description but adds no significant semantic value beyond the schema. The 'id' parameter supports partial matching per schema, which the description doesn't contextualize.

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?

Clear verb ('Set or clear') and resource ('color of a card') with purpose context ('visual categorization'). However, it doesn't distinguish from label-based color coding available via add_labels_to_card, leaving ambiguity about when to use this native color property vs 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?

Implies dual operation modes (set vs clear) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like add_labels_to_card which may also affect card appearance. No mention of when clearing is appropriate.

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