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 key behavioral traits: it closes voting (implying an irreversible state change) and computes results based on threshold types. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if voting is already closed.

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 parameter explanations are necessary but could be slightly more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary details and maintains focus.

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 (finalizing proposals with threshold logic) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and key behavior, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines or error handling notes.

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 beyond the schema by explaining that 'proposal_id' identifies the proposal to finalize, and clarifies that 'total_eligible_voters' is optional and used for quorum calculation, with a fallback to votes cast if not provided. This covers both parameters adequately.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Close voting', 'compute the final result') and resource ('proposal'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'cast_vote' or 'create_proposal' by focusing on finalization rather than creation or individual voting actions.

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 mentioning 'threshold type' and quorum calculations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_proposal' for status checks or 'reopen_project' for reversing actions. It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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