float-mcp

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 'archive or unarchive' implies a state change rather than permanent deletion, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, affects task visibility in lists, triggers notifications, or has other side effects. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 at just 5 words, front-loading the core action without any unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for quick comprehension while covering the essential functionality.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what archiving means in this system, whether it's reversible, what happens to archived tasks, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of state-changing operations and lack of structured documentation, 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides about project_task_id and archive parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 verb ('archive or unarchive') and resource ('project task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-project-task' or 'update-project-task' which also modify project tasks, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific operation.

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. With siblings like 'delete-project-task' and 'update-project-task' available, there's no indication whether archiving is reversible, temporary, or has different permissions compared to deletion or other modifications.

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