Thinkific 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing promotion' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether partial updates are allowed, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose immediately without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, partial updates, or response format. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it should provide more context about how the tool behaves and what to expect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like discount_type and amount). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing promotion' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (promotion), but it's vague about what aspects can be updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_coupon' or 'update_category' beyond the resource name, nor does it specify the scope of updates possible.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing promotion ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update tools like 'update_coupon' or 'update_category' in the sibling list.

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