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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that jwt_token forwards the caller's JWT 'for this request only', which adds useful context about authentication scope. However, it doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, idempotency (important for PUT), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by three focused bullet points. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about usage, body format, and authentication. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is moderately complete. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description should do more for a PUT operation - explaining idempotency, typical status codes, or error scenarios would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It provides meaningful context for two parameters: 'body accepts JSON object/array or UTF-8 text' and 'Pass jwt_token to forward the caller's JWT for this request only'. This adds valuable semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover url, content_type, or headers parameters. The description does significant work to explain key parameters.

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 as 'Send an HTTP PUT request' and specifies it's 'for full updates/replacements', which provides specific verb+resource context. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this PUT tool from its sibling HTTP methods (GET, POST, PATCH, DELETE) beyond mentioning 'full updates/replacements', which is somewhat helpful but not fully differentiating.

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 guidance with 'Use for full updates/replacements' and mentions the jwt_token parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other HTTP methods (like PATCH for partial updates or POST for creation) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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