float-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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address permissions required, whether creation is reversible, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 15 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Create a new milestone for a project or phase') contributes essential information, making it maximally concise while remaining clear.

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 (15 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., 'date' vs. 'start_date'/'end_date'), what values 'status' or 'priority' accept, or what happens upon success/failure. For a create operation with many parameters, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 15 parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'project or phase' context, which is already covered by the 'project_id' and 'phase_id' parameters in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new milestone for a project or phase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create-project' or 'create-phase' beyond the resource type, nor does it mention that it's specifically for milestones within projects/phases rather than standalone milestones.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), when not to use it (e.g., for updating milestones), or refer to sibling tools like 'update-milestone' or 'complete-milestone'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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