synter-mcp-server

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds value by specifying it works 'across all connected platforms,' which clarifies its cross-platform applicability beyond what annotations convey. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'Pause' aligns with a destructive action.

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 ('Pause a campaign by ID') and adds necessary context ('Works across all connected platforms') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place by clarifying purpose and scope.

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 operation with 2 required parameters), annotations cover the destructive nature, and the schema fully describes inputs. The description adds cross-platform context, but without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or error conditions, leaving a minor gap for completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters (campaign_id and platform with enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or platform-specific behaviors, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Pause') and resource ('campaign by ID'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on pausing rather than creating, updating, or listing campaigns. The phrase 'Works across all connected platforms' further clarifies its cross-platform scope.

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 context by specifying 'by ID' and 'across all connected platforms,' which suggests it should be used when you have a campaign ID and need to pause it on a supported platform. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., update_campaign_budget for budget changes instead of pausing).

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