Tendem MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the creation is asynchronous ('poll with get_task'), has a status flow ('until status is AWAITING_APPROVAL'), and includes timing expectations ('may take up to 10 minutes'). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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?

Perfectly structured and front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose, second provides critical usage guidance, then dedicated 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter meaning, and behavioral expectations. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained in the description.

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 fully explains the single parameter 'text' with clear semantics ('The task description/prompt to execute'), adding value beyond the bare schema. With 0% coverage, this exceeds the baseline expectation.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new Tendem task') with specific input ('with the given text'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tasks' (list), 'get_task' (retrieve), 'approve_task' (modify), etc. by focusing on creation only.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Create a new Tendem task') and provides clear post-creation guidance ('After creation, poll with get_task until status is AWAITING_APPROVAL'). It names the alternative tool ('get_task') and specifies timing constraints ('may take up to 10 minutes').

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