rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and advises caution ('Use sparingly'), which is crucial for a mutation tool. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions required, or what happens to associated data, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action and providing usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words, making it highly efficient.

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 does the minimum by clarifying the action and advising caution. However, it lacks details on permissions, irreversible consequences, error conditions, or what 'archiving via status update' entails, leaving gaps in contextual understanding despite its conciseness.

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 50% (only 'noteId' has a description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'sessionId' parameter or providing context for 'noteId' format. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the gaps, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a narrative note'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'update_narrative_note' by indicating a destructive action rather than modification.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool ('Use sparingly') and when to prefer an alternative ('prefer archiving via status update'), offering clear context for decision-making. This directly addresses the tool's role relative to other options.

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