workbench-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a destructive operation ('delete operations'), mentions JWT token forwarding, and notes API variability for delete payloads. However, it lacks details on error handling, response formats, authentication requirements beyond JWT, or rate limits.

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 with three sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage notes and parameter guidance. No redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description partially compensates but has gaps. It covers destructive behavior and some parameter semantics, but lacks comprehensive guidance on error cases, authentication, or when to use versus siblings, making it minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for 'body' (JSON object/array or UTF-8 text) and 'jwt_token' (forward caller's JWT for this request only). However, it doesn't explain 'url', 'content_type', or 'headers' parameters, leaving 3 of 5 parameters without semantic clarification.

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's purpose: 'Send an HTTP DELETE request' and 'Use for delete operations.' It specifies the verb (send/delete) and resource (HTTP request), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling HTTP tools like http_get or http_post beyond the method name.

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 some usage context: 'Use for delete operations' and mentions when to use the body parameter ('Some APIs allow delete payloads; if needed...'). However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to choose this over other HTTP methods or alternatives, nor does it mention sibling HTTP tools for comparison.

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