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. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core purpose with helpful examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what the return value contains. The agent lacks critical context needed to use this tool effectively in a workflow.

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 4 parameters with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does 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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new time off type') with specific examples ('e.g., vacation, sick leave, personal time'). It distinguishes this tool from other 'create' tools by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'create-timeoff' or 'create-status' beyond the resource name.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create-timeoff' or 'update-time-off-type'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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