float-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no structured safety hints.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while stating the core action.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 4 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what 'task/allocation' entails, how it differs from siblings, or behavioral expectations, making it inadequate for a mutation tool in this context.

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 10 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, not explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'task/allocation' relates to fields) or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 task/allocation' states the verb ('Create') and resource ('task/allocation'), but it's vague about what exactly is being created—a task, an allocation, or both? It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create-project-task' or 'create-allocation', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create-project-task' and 'create-allocation' present, the description fails to indicate whether this is a general-purpose creation tool or if it serves a specific context, offering no usage context or exclusions.

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