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. It indicates a mutation ('deactivate') but doesn't specify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or the impact on related data. It mentions setting active status to 0, which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like side effects or error handling for a destructive operation.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There is zero waste, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, and usage context. For a tool that modifies account state, more information is needed to guide safe and effective use, making it inadequate for the agent's needs.

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%, with the parameter 'account_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is added.

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 ('deactivate') and resource ('account'), specifying what the tool does by setting active status to 0. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reactivate-account' by indicating opposite functionality, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 'delete-account' or 'update-account', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for deactivation. It implies usage for setting active status to 0 but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling comparisons, leaving gaps for agent decision-making.

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