rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update progress' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if progress can be decreased, what happens when objectives are already complete, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'progress' but doesn't explain what the parameters mean (e.g., what characterId, questId, objectiveId refer to, what sessionId is for, or how progress values work). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information.

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 states the tool updates progress on a quest objective, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'complete_objective' or 'complete_quest,' leaving ambiguity about how it differs from those completion-focused tools.

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. With siblings like 'complete_objective' and 'complete_quest' available, there's no indication whether this is for incremental progress updates versus final completion, nor any prerequisites or context for usage.

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