workbench-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends HTTP PATCH requests for partial updates and mentions JWT token forwarding, which adds useful context about authentication. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, side effects, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for an HTTP tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by brief usage notes and parameter hints. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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's complexity (HTTP mutation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, partial usage, and some parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or side effects, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe invocation.

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 meaning for 'body' (accepts JSON object/array or UTF-8 text) and 'jwt_token' (forwards caller's JWT for this request only), which clarifies two of the five parameters beyond the schema. However, it doesn't cover 'url', 'content_type', or 'headers', leaving some parameters undocumented. The value added is significant but incomplete.

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 PATCH request' and adds 'Use for partial updates.' This specifies the verb (send PATCH request) and resource (HTTP endpoints), distinguishing it from siblings like http_post or http_put. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all HTTP siblings beyond mentioning 'partial updates,' which is good but not fully comprehensive.

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 clear context: 'Use for partial updates' and mentions forwarding JWT tokens. This gives guidance on when to use this tool (for partial updates) and hints at authentication needs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like http_put for full updates, leaving some ambiguity compared to siblings.

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