rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions updating an existing note and a common use case, but fails to describe critical aspects such as permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a common use example. Both sentences are relevant and contribute to understanding, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and comprehensive usage guidelines, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 71% (5 out of 7 parameters have descriptions), which is moderately high. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'marking a plot_thread as resolved' (related to the 'status' parameter), but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents. This meets the baseline for adequate coverage.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing narrative note'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_narrative_note' or 'delete_narrative_note', which would be needed for a score of 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 a 'Common use' example ('marking a plot_thread as resolved'), which implies some context but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. add or delete a note) or any prerequisites. This leaves gaps in usage direction.

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