obo-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents important behavioral traits: automatic recalculation of priority_score, string-to-numeric type casting for values, and the conditional path resolution logic for base_dir.

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?

Appropriately structured with purpose stated first, followed by behavioral side effects, then detailed parameter semantics. Dense but necessary given schema deficiencies. No redundant content, though the docstring-style Args format is slightly verbose.

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 that an output schema exists (covering return values), the description provides sufficient context for this mutation tool. It covers the 5 parameters, side effects, and path resolution logic. Minor gap regarding explicit sibling relationships prevents a 5.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The Args block comprehensively compensates by documenting all 5 parameters with specific path semantics (session_file), examples (field names), type handling rules (value casting), and conditional requirements (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?

Clearly states the core action ('Update any field on an item') and identifies the resource. The mention of 'any field' implicitly distinguishes this general-purpose updater from specialized siblings like obo_mark_complete, though explicit differentiation is absent.

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?

Explains when auto-recalculation of priority_score occurs (score component changes), providing useful context for side effects. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus specialized alternatives like obo_mark_complete or obo_mark_skip for status changes.

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