lexicon_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions a write requirement but does not disclose what the control actions do, whether they are reversible, or what side effects occur. The behavior is opaque beyond the env var hint.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the verb and examples. However, the examples are parenthetical and could be better integrated. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure could be improved for 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested parameters, no output schema, potentially varied actions), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or how to discover valid action names. The contextual completeness is poor.

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 coverage is 50%: only 'action' has a description; 'parameters' is an object with no schema. The description adds examples for the action parameter but gives no guidance on the structure of parameters (nested object), which is critical for proper invocation. The parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 uses the verb 'Run' with the resource 'Lexicon control action' and provides examples like 'Incoming_SelectedDone' and 'Application_Tags_AddShortcut', making the purpose clear. However, it does not fully differentiate from sibling tools that also perform actions (e.g., lexicon_request, lexicon_raw_request), so it loses a point for lacking sibling differentiation.

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 states a prerequisite (LEXICON_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=1), which gives some usage context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like lexicon_request or lexicon_update_track, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is minimal.

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