Agentic Tools MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key traits: the tool is destructive ('removing'), has safety measures ('confirmation safeguards', 'required confirmation protocols'), and aims to 'preserve data integrity'. It doesn't mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits, but covers the essential destructive nature and safety mechanisms adequately.

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 appropriately sized (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about maintaining priorities and data integrity. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more direct (e.g., starting with 'Delete subtasks' rather than 'Clean up').

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 (destructive operation with 3 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the destructive nature and safety protocols but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., permissions), error cases, or what happens post-deletion. For a deletion tool with no structured safety hints, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'id' or 'workingDirectory' further). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'safely removing completed or obsolete subtasks' with 'confirmation safeguards'. It specifies the resource (subtasks) and the action (removing/deleting). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_task' or 'delete_project', which reduces the score 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 implied usage guidance: 'completed or obsolete subtasks' suggests when to use it, and 'maintain focus on current priorities' hints at the context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_subtask' for modification instead of deletion, which would be more helpful for an AI agent.

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