obo-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the core action. It lacks disclosure on persistence (is completion reversible?), side effects (what happens to the item after?), idempotency, or what the output schema contains despite the tool having a return value.

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 with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by structured parameter documentation. The Args format is scannable and information-dense, though slightly informal. No wasted words or redundant explanations.

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 output schema exists, the description correctly omits return value details. However, for a state-changing workflow tool with multiple siblings, it lacks context about the OBO session lifecycle, error conditions (e.g., already completed items), and the semantic meaning of 'complete' in this domain.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters in the Args section. It adds critical semantic context: the path relationship between session_file and base_dir, the purpose of resolution text, and conditional requirements for base_dir.

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 (mark as completed), the resource (item), and the distinguishing feature (resolution text). It effectively differentiates from siblings like obo_mark_skip (different outcome) and obo_get_item (read vs. write operation).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives, particularly obo_mark_skip. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., item must exist) or when completion is appropriate versus other state changes like obo_update_field.

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