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 mentions that deletion archives the milestone in Float, which adds some behavioral context beyond a simple 'delete'. However, it lacks critical details: whether this action is reversible, permission requirements, confirmation prompts, or effects on related data (e.g., tasks, projects). For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the core action ('Delete a milestone') and adds clarifying context ('archives it in Float') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), side effects, and safety considerations. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use given the tool's complexity and potential impact.

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 single parameter 'milestone_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a milestone'), specifying that it archives in Float. It distinguishes from siblings like 'complete-milestone' by focusing on deletion/archiving rather than completion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete-project', 'delete-task'), though the resource specificity helps.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or when to choose deletion over other milestone operations like 'update-milestone' or 'complete-milestone'. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.

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