Tendem MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool triggers a human expert to work on the task, which may take hours to reach COMPLETED status. This adds valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects like whether approval is reversible.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly. However, the second sentence could be more concise, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Approve a Tendem task' and 'task ID to approve').

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, behavioral outcomes, and parameter semantics. However, it could improve by addressing error cases or prerequisites beyond status.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that task_id is a 'Tendem task ID (UUID) to approve,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. Since there is only one parameter, this is sufficient to achieve a high score, though it doesn't detail validation rules or examples.

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 ('Approve a Tendem task') and identifies the target resource ('task that is awaiting approval'). It distinguishes this from siblings like cancel_task, create_task, and list_tasks by focusing on the approval action for tasks in a specific status.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool: 'Call after reviewing the price in AWAITING_APPROVAL status.' This gives clear guidance on the prerequisite condition. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives among siblings like cancel_task for different scenarios.

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