ReftrixMCP

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

Annotations indicate destructive (readOnlyHint: false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false) behavior. The description adds valuable technical specifics about deletion behavior: CASCADE DELETE for pages, hard delete for profiles, and bulk delete for all_user_data, which helps the agent understand scope and impact beyond the annotation flags.

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 bilingual presentation is efficient and front-loaded with the legal basis and action. The structure separates the legal context, target type explanations, and confirmation requirement clearly. Minor redundancy between Japanese and English is necessary for the intended audience and does not detract from clarity.

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 high-stakes destructive operation with legal compliance requirements, the description adequately covers the deletion modes, UUID requirements, and audit trail needs (reason parameter). It appropriately delegates specific parameter formats to the 100%-covered schema. Missing output schema is acceptable for a deletion operation, though noting the non-idempotent behavior from annotations in the description would strengthen it 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 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful technical semantics by specifying 'CASCADE DELETE', 'hard delete', and 'bulk delete' for the target parameter options, providing database-level context not present in the schema descriptions. It also emphasizes the confirm flag requirement.

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 explicitly states it performs permanent data deletion under GDPR Art.17 'Right to Erasure' and distinguishes the three specific deletion modes (page CASCADE DELETE, profile hard delete, all_user_data bulk delete), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like data.export or preference.reset.

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 GDPR Art.17 reference provides clear legal context for when to invoke this tool. It explicitly states the confirm: true requirement as a safety gate. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., preference.reset for non-permanent removal) or warnings about irreversibility beyond 'permanently deletes'.

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