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 discloses that deletion archives rather than permanently removes, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits/constraints.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a person') and adds crucial behavioral clarification ('archives them in Float'). Zero wasted words while conveying 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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides minimal but critical context about archiving behavior. However, it lacks important details about permissions, reversibility, side effects, and what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral transparency.

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 'people_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, but with complete schema coverage and only one parameter, this meets baseline expectations without needing extra explanation.

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 person'), and specifies that deletion archives them in Float. This distinguishes it from physical deletion, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deactivate-account' or other delete operations.

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 like 'deactivate-account' or 'update-person' with status changes. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions required, or consequences of archiving versus other deletion methods.

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