rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion affects members (they become unassigned but not deleted), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, error conditions, or what happens to other party-associated data like quests or inventory.

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—two brief sentences that directly state the action and a key behavioral consequence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical information: what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, error handling, confirmation of deletion, or what happens to party-related data beyond members. The behavioral note about members is helpful but incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'partyId' and 'sessionId' are undocumented. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their format, or how they're used. It doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a party'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_character' or 'delete_world' by specifying the party resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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, conditions, or what happens to related entities beyond members becoming unassigned. There's no comparison to similar tools like 'delete_character' or context for when deletion is appropriate.

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