synter-mcp-server

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the tool blocks 'unwanted search terms,' which clarifies the destructive nature hinted by destructiveHint=true. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, relying on annotations for safety cues without fully compensating for behavioral gaps.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive annotation, 3 parameters with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage scenarios, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic details about parameters like 'campaign_id' or 'keywords,' so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding beyond the structured data.

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 ('add') and resource ('negative keywords') with the purpose 'to block unwanted search terms,' making the tool's function explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_keywords' or 'update_campaign_budget,' which might also involve keyword management, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings such as 'add_keywords' or campaign-related tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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