synter-mcp-server

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating a write operation. The description adds context that this uploads an image 'as an asset for use in ads', clarifying the resource type and purpose. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to existing assets. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('upload an image'), zero waste. Efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary details, 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?

For a destructive tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or platform-specific nuances. With annotations covering destructiveness, it's adequate but could be more comprehensive for a mutation operation.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'URL of the image to upload'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the asset is for ads, which doesn't enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('upload') and resource ('image as an asset'), specifying its use 'for ads'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_image' (which creates rather than uploads) and campaign tools, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_image' or other asset-related tools. It mentions the use case 'for ads' but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. The description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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