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 this is a manual ending action but doesn't describe what 'end' means operationally (e.g., does it trigger side effects, require permissions, return confirmation?). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, and the parenthetical example provides helpful clarification without verbosity.

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 2 parameters, 50% schema coverage, and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose and usage context but lacks details about behavioral implications, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes. It meets minimum requirements but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 'auraId' has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by 'aura by ID'. It doesn't explain 'sessionId' or provide additional context about parameter usage. With moderate schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameter, 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 action ('manually end') and target resource ('an aura by ID'), providing specific purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'expire_auras' (automatic) and 'remove_character_auras' (character-specific), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'break_concentration' which might overlap conceptually, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('when concentration breaks or spell is dismissed'), giving practical scenarios. It implies usage for manual intervention rather than automatic processes, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like 'expire_auras', preventing a score of 5.

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