cutie-mcp

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. It effectively describes key behaviors: merging vote counts and linked conversations, and deleting the source. However, it does not cover aspects like permissions needed, error handling, or whether the operation is atomic. No contradictions exist, and it adds valuable context beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose and key actions. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive merge operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main action and consequences, but could improve by mentioning potential side effects or return values. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, it provides adequate context, though not exhaustive.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('target_id' and 'source_id'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., that IDs must be valid or distinct). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 ('merge a duplicate feature request into a target'), the resource ('feature request'), and the outcome ('combines vote counts and linked conversations, then deletes the source'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_conversation' or 'update_feature_request' by focusing on merging duplicates rather than simple deletion or 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 implies usage for merging duplicate feature requests, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_feature_request' or 'delete_conversation'. It provides context (merging duplicates) but lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether both IDs must exist or if the operation is reversible.

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