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 but provides none. 'Create a new person' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose: what permissions are required, whether this operation is reversible, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical gap in behavioral understanding.

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 maximally concise at three words. While it's under-specified, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the essential action. Every word ('Create', 'new', 'person') earns its place by contributing to the core meaning, even if that meaning is insufficiently detailed.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (what's returned, how to reference the new person), doesn't mention required permissions or constraints, and provides no context about the person's role in the broader system. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but other critical contextual elements are missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter well-documented including formats (email), enumerated values (employee_type, people_type_id, active), and clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create a new person' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create-person'. It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('person'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-account', 'create-client', or 'create-department' - all of which follow the same 'create-[resource]' pattern. The description lacks any distinguishing scope or context about what kind of person is being created.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other person-related tools (like 'update-person' or 'delete-person'), or any context about the system's person management workflow. The agent receives no directional help about appropriate usage scenarios.

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