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 tool, implying a write operation, but fails to mention critical aspects like authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., notifications sent), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, direct sentence that states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 of a 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., mutative nature, error cases), usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for proper invocation.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'hours' for partial days, 'status' with numeric codes). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.

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') and resource ('a new time off request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk-create-timeoff' or 'update-timeoff' beyond the basic verb, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'bulk-create-timeoff' for multiple requests or 'update-timeoff' for modifications. It also lacks context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or valid timeoff_type_id values, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.

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