yuque-mcp-plus

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

Zero annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for what is clearly a mutation operation ('update'). However, it reveals nothing about side effects (e.g., whether this restructures documents), authorization requirements, idempotency, or rate limits. The alias reference suggests identical behavior to the sibling, but defers all behavioral transparency.

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 efficient at 11 words in a single sentence. Every word earns its place: it identifies the alias target and the rationale. No redundancy or filler content.

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 mutation tool with a nested object payload (containing unknown TOC structure) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides no insight into the payload structure, expected return values, or operational consequences, relying entirely on the sibling tool's documentation which may not always be visible in context.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (repoId, repoNamespace, payload are all described). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, syntax examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 identifies the tool as an alias of yuque_update_repository_toc and explains the compatibility rationale, but fails to state what functional operation it performs (updating a table of contents). An agent selecting this tool would not understand the action semantics without cross-referencing the sibling tool.

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 phrase 'for compatibility with official naming' implies a specific usage context (when adhering to official Yuque API nomenclature), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this alias over the canonical yuque_update_repository_toc or vice versa. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are provided.

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