float-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 states the tool marks a milestone as completed, implying a mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects related data (e.g., project status). The optional date handling is mentioned, but other critical behaviors like error conditions or side effects are omitted.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Mark a milestone as completed') and includes the key optional feature ('with optional completion date'). There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly 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 lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, reversibility), error handling, and what the tool returns upon completion. Given the complexity of updating a milestone status, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 fully documents all three parameters (milestone_id, completed_date, notes) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only hinting at the optionality of completed_date. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 action ('Mark as completed') and resource ('milestone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create-milestone' or 'update-milestone' by focusing specifically on completion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update-milestone' which might also handle completion, leaving some ambiguity.

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 like 'update-milestone' or 'delete-milestone', nor does it mention prerequisites such as milestone existence or user permissions. It lacks context about typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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