Ops MCP Server

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 and does so comprehensively. It explains state dependencies, the destructive nature of the operation ('permanently'), the two force modes with their different behaviors, the automatic stopping and job cancellation when force=True, and the step-by-step reporting of actions taken.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by state requirements, force parameter behavior in bullet points, and organized parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the formatting enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 destructive operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides complete context. It covers prerequisites, behavioral nuances, parameter semantics, and mentions the return format ('step-by-step report'). The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values further.

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, the description provides essential semantic context for all three parameters. It explains what application_id represents, the detailed behavior of the force parameter (including job cancellation implications), and the critical importance of the env parameter with specific valid values and guidance against guessing/defaulting.

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 ('Delete an EMR Serverless application permanently') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'stop_emr_application' by emphasizing permanent deletion rather than temporary stopping. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it specifies the application must be in STOPPED or CREATED state, mentions that 'stop_emr_application' could be used first if needed, and explains the force parameter behavior for handling running applications. It also includes important environment selection guidance.

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