BotUyo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Deletes') and scope ('all its chunks'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details: permission requirements, irreversibility warning, confirmation prompts, error handling, or what happens on success. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by specifying scope and secondary effects.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but omits critical context: success/error responses, side effects beyond chunk deletion (e.g., impact on associated agents), and safety warnings. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool responsibly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'documentId' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, sourcing guidance, or validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Deletes'), the resource ('a knowledge base document and all its chunks'), and the scope ('from the current tenant'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_agent' by specifying the exact resource type being deleted.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the document ID from 'list_knowledge_documents'), exclusions, or compare with other deletion tools like 'delete_agent'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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