rpg-mcp

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 tool 'Create[s] a typed narrative note' implying a write operation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality. The first sentence states the action and note types, while the second explains the purpose. No wasted words, though it could be more structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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 complex creation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, how notes integrate with the narrative system, or provide examples of proper usage. The gap between what's needed and what's provided is significant.

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 60%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter context. It mentions 'typed narrative note' and lists the five enum types, which aligns with the 'type' parameter, but doesn't explain other parameters like 'metadata', 'entityId', or 'sessionId'. The description provides some value but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a typed narrative note' with specific types listed (plot thread, canonical moment, NPC voice, foreshadowing, session log). It distinguishes the note's function for 'long-term narrative memory' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_narrative_note' or 'search_narrative_notes'.

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 like 'update_narrative_note' or 'delete_narrative_note'. It mentions the tool is 'Used to build long-term narrative memory' but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for creation.

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