Corpus MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies destruction but lacks disclosure on permanence, error behavior (ID not found), or return value (despite output schema existing). Critical safety context missing for destructive operation.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence (6 words). No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with verb and object.

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?

Insufficient for a destructive single-parameter tool. Output schema exists (reducing need to document returns), but description omits irreversibility warnings, confirmation requirements, and error cases that annotations would typically cover.

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 coverage is 0% (holding_id has no description). Description compensates minimally by mentioning 'by ID', implying the parameter identifies the holding. Lacks details on valid ID formats, constraints, or examples.

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?

States specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('gold holding'), with 'by ID' indicating the identification method. Distinguishes from stock/transaction siblings implicitly via resource name, though explicit differentiation from delete_stock_holding is absent.

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?

No guidance on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., verifying ID exists), or workflow context (e.g., call after list_gold_holdings).

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