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. 'Delete an allocation' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context such as error handling, return values, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool that permanently removes data, this minimal description fails to provide the necessary operational guidance.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'task_id' documented as 'The allocation ID (task_id in Float API)'. The description adds no additional semantic context about this parameter (e.g., format examples, where to find the ID, or validation rules). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete an allocation' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (allocation), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like delete-client, delete-project, etc.), leaving ambiguity about what makes an 'allocation' deletion different from other deletions.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the allocation must exist or be in a certain state), when not to use it, or what other tools might be related (like 'get-allocation' to check before deletion or 'create-allocation' for replacement).

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