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. 'Create a new phase' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this operation is reversible (note delete-phase exists), what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a creation tool.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the essential function.

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 creation tool with 11 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid phase, how phases relate to other entities (projects, milestones), what happens after creation, or any constraints beyond the required parameters. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description should provide more contextual guidance.

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 all 11 parameters clearly documented including formats and enums. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage when schema does the heavy lifting, but 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 ('Create a new phase') and resource ('within a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'create-' siblings like create-project or create-milestone, which would require specifying what makes a phase distinct in this system.

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 many sibling tools including create-project, create-milestone, and update-phase, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what distinguishes creating a phase from other project-related creation operations.

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