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. It states 'Create a new project' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it triggers notifications or workflows), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a brief usage note. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context or prerequisites.

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 (12 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response details, nor does it provide adequate usage guidance relative to siblings. For a creation tool in a rich ecosystem, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description mentions 'budget, timeline, client association, and project configuration,' which loosely maps to some parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no additional parameter insights.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new project with comprehensive settings including budget, timeline, client association, and project configuration.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('project'), and lists key fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-project-task' or 'create-phase', which also create project-related entities.

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 minimal guidance: 'Essential for project initialization and setup.' This implies usage at project start but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update-project' for modifications, 'create-project-task' for tasks within a project), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing client. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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