Clink MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Re-open') and effect ('allows adding new checkpoints or completing remaining ones'), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 main purpose stated first followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the formatting with indentation could be slightly cleaner. Every sentence adds value.

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 (a mutation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'milestone_id' is for 'The milestone ID to reopen', which clarifies its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format or constraints. Baseline is high due to low parameter count and coverage.

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 ('Re-open') and resource ('a closed milestone'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_milestone' or 'update_milestone' by focusing on reopening closed milestones, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings like 'reopen_project'.

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 it's for reopening closed milestones, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_milestone' for modifications or 'create_milestone' for new ones) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives or exclusions.

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