Clink MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It describes what the tool does (creation with configurable voting) but omits critical details like permissions required, whether proposals are editable after creation, error conditions, or response format. The mention of 'deadline_hours' hints at time-bound behavior but doesn't elaborate.

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 well-structured with a concise opening sentence followed by detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section formatting could be more integrated. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It thoroughly documents parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling). The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description, but more operational guidance would help.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters with clear semantics. It defines each parameter's purpose, provides examples (e.g., 'group slug'), enumerates allowed values for 'voting_type' and 'threshold_type', specifies defaults, and clarifies conditional requirements (e.g., 'options' required for single/ranked voting).

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 ('Create a voting proposal') and resource ('for group decision-making'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_proposal' or 'finalize_proposal'. It specifies the tool's core functionality with supporting features like voting types and thresholds.

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 through parameter explanations (e.g., 'required for those types, ignored for yes_no'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_proposal' or 'finalize_proposal'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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