Clink MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates project status to 'completed' and that completed projects remain visible, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is adequate but has gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and outcome, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains the tool's effect, and the second documents the parameter. It's efficiently structured with no wasted words.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and some behavioral traits. However, as a mutation tool, it could benefit from more detail on permissions or side effects, but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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?

The description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'project_id', adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. This compensates well for the schema gap by specifying the parameter's purpose. Since there's only one parameter, the documentation is straightforward and complete.

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 ('Mark a project as completed') and resource ('project'), with specific outcome details ('Completed projects remain visible but indicate all work is done'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_project' by focusing on completion status rather than archival, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This provides a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 implies usage context by stating the tool marks projects as completed, suggesting it's for finishing work. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'archive_project' or 'reopen_project', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not detailed.

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