NewsDigest MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions updating import statements, which is valuable behavioral context beyond basic file movement. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this requires write permissions, what happens to broken imports, if there are rate limits, or how conflicts are handled with the 'overwrite' parameter.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes the important secondary effect of updating import statements. Every word earns its place.

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 adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, permission requirements, or what the return value contains. The import statement update is helpful context, but more completeness would be expected for a file system operation tool.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 action ('move'), the resource ('TypeScript/JavaScript file'), and the additional effect ('update all import statements'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'move_directory' by specifying file-level operations and from 'rename_symbol' by focusing on physical file movement with import updates.

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 like 'move_directory' or 'rename_symbol'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for file movement versus other operations. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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