AAP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'handles specific format requirements' but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is a mutation (likely yes given 'create'), error conditions, or what happens on success. The example shows structure but doesn't explain behavioral traits like validation rules or system impacts.

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 but not optimally structured. The first two sentences clearly state purpose, but the extensive example (which is valuable) dominates the text. While the example earns its place by clarifying parameter semantics, the description could be more front-loaded with critical usage information before the example.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage, and no complex annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It provides purpose, format requirements through example, and clarifies the 'questions' parameter structure. The main gap is lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines, but the structured fields cover much of the technical detail.

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 parameters. The description adds value through the detailed example showing question format with fields like 'question_name', 'type', 'choices', etc., which clarifies the expected structure of the 'questions' array parameter beyond the schema's generic 'items: {}' definition. However, it doesn't explain other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool creates a survey for a workflow job template with proper formatting, specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'survey for workflow job template'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'AAP survey specs' format requirements, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for similar functions.

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. While it mentions 'proper formatting for AAP survey specs', it doesn't specify prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or refer to sibling tools like 'template_survey_management' or 'workflow_automation_management' that might handle related functions.

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