Miyabi MCP Bundle

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. 'Manage context expiration' gives no indication of whether this is a read, write, or destructive operation. It doesn't mention permissions required, side effects, rate limits, or what happens when expiration is set. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective, there's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word carries meaning, even if that meaning is insufficient.

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?

This is a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides minimal information that doesn't help an agent understand what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what behavior to expect. For a tool that appears to modify context expiration (implied by 'manage'), this level of documentation is completely inadequate.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (id, society, new_ttl) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning none have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't explain what 'society' means (though it's required), what 'id' refers to, what 'new_ttl' represents, or the units for TTL. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Manage context expiration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'context_expire'. It doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., set, extend, or remove expiration) or what resource is affected. While it mentions 'context', it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like context_get, context_list, or context_store.

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 any prerequisites, conditions for use, or relationships to sibling tools. Given the many context-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., context_get, context_share, context_store), this lack of differentiation is particularly problematic.

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