Add multiple free-text signup lines at once to a day's free-text field; previews first unless confirm=true is set.
Ajoute plusieurs lignes de texte libre d'un coup dans un champ « texte libre » d'une journée. Sans confirm=true : aperçu seulement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| texts | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| field_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does reveal the critical preview-by-default behavior via confirm=true, which is meaningful. However, it lacks other behavioral details such as permissions, reversibility, error handling, and what the preview returns, leaving gaps 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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the confirm condition. Highly 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 a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and preview behavior. It remains incomplete about return values, permissions, and date/text formatting, so an agent may need to infer or experiment. Adequate but not fully satisfying for the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives semantic roles for all four parameters: date is the day, field_id is the free-text field, texts are the multiple free-text lines, and confirm controls preview versus execution. It still omits format specifics (e.g., date format, integer field_id), but adds useful meaning beyond bare schema titles.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: adding multiple free-text lines at once into a day's free-text field. The bulk scope is clear and distinguishes it from the singular sibling add_freetext_signup, even though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly. An agent can immediately tell this is the batch variant.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent how to execute versus preview: without confirm=true it is preview only. This is a clear rule for how to use the tool. It doesn't name alternatives like add_freetext_signup, but the bulk wording implies when to choose it over single-entry tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.