alpaca-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated assets, or if there are rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., whether assets are preserved elsewhere), what the return value might be (success/failure indicators), or error conditions. Given the tool's complexity as a delete operation, more context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'watchlist_id' documented as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it merely restates 'by its ID'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('a specific watchlist by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_asset_from_watchlist_by_id' or 'update_watchlist_by_id', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'remove_asset_from_watchlist_by_id' (which removes assets from watchlists) or 'create_watchlist' (which creates new watchlists). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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