NewsDigest MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of updating TypeScript imports/references, which is valuable beyond basic move operations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling, permission requirements, or whether the operation is atomic/reversible.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key benefit. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete—it covers the primary purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on error conditions, return values, or advanced usage scenarios that would be helpful given the tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify path formats or the scope of 'overwrite'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('move a directory') and the key behavioral outcome ('updating all TypeScript imports and references automatically'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_file' (which presumably moves individual files) and 'rename_symbol' (which renames symbols rather than directories).

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 implies usage for moving directories in TypeScript projects where import/ref updates are needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'move_file' or when not to use it (e.g., for non-TypeScript projects). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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