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. 'Store context data' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation (though 'store' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether storage is persistent or temporary, what happens on conflicts, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral 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 three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description 'Store context data' provides minimal context about what the tool does and nothing about how to use it, what it returns, or its behavioral characteristics. For a tool of this complexity with no structured documentation support, the description 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (3 required), the description provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't mention 'key', 'society', 'data', or 'ttl', nor does it explain what these parameters mean, their relationships, or their expected formats. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 'Store context data' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'context_store'. It provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what 'context data' means or what storage mechanism is used. Compared to sibling tools like 'context_get', 'context_list', and 'context_search', it doesn't clearly differentiate its specific role within the context management family.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling context tools available (context_get, context_list, context_search, context_share, context_expire), the agent receives no indication about when this storage operation is appropriate versus retrieval, listing, or sharing operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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