Learning Hour MCP

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 mentions 'use with caution!' which hints at potential destructiveness, but fails to specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting linked data). This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient. However, the cautionary note is tacked on without elaboration, which slightly reduces its structural clarity but doesn't significantly impact readability.

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 (a destructive delete operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, return values, or error conditions, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full impact and usage.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('boardId' and 'confirm') clearly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage context, resulting in the baseline score.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a Miro board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'create_miro_board' or 'get_miro_board') beyond the obvious action difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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 includes a cautionary note ('use with caution!'), which implies this should be used carefully, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when deletion is appropriate vs. archiving) or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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