wopee-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the destructive nature ('destructive overwrite — full content is replaced, not patched'), idempotency guarantees, and specific failure modes (invalid UUID, missing artifact). No contradictions.

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?

Six sentences, each earning its place: purpose, destructive nature, when-to-use, when-not-to-use/prerequisites, return behavior, idempotency. No redundancy despite covering complex behavioral and procedural requirements.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, sibling tool relationships, success/failure return patterns, and destructive side-effects that would normally require annotation hints.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context that explains parameter relationships: suiteUuid comes from prior fetching, content requires full replacement (not diff), and maps artifact types (USER_STORIES, PLAYWRIGHT_CODE) to use cases ('fix incorrect user stories', 'edit generated Playwright code').

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 uses specific verb 'Replace' with resource 'test artifact' and scope 'in a suite'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling wopee_generate_artifact by stating this is for existing artifacts only, not creating new ones.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('after reviewing artifacts with wopee_fetch_artifact'), when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use this to create new artifacts'), prerequisite ('artifact must already exist'), and names the correct alternative tool ('use wopee_generate_artifact instead').

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