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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the secret doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('update') and resource ('secret'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 (8 parameters with nested objects in revealConditions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of parameters like 'leakPatterns' or 'revealConditions', nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling or return values. For a mutation tool in a game/secret-management context, this leaves critical gaps.

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 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'properties' without specifying any of the actual parameters (e.g., secretId, sensitivity, leakPatterns). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Update a secret's properties' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('secret'), but it's vague about what specific properties can be updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_character' or 'update_item', which follow the same pattern. However, it avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 (e.g., needing an existing secret), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'create_secret' or 'delete_secret'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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