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 in Float, which adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'delete'. However, it lacks critical details: whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data (e.g., tasks in the phase), or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, 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 that front-loads the core action ('Delete a phase') and adds clarifying context ('archives it in Float'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or effects on related data. While concise, it fails to provide the necessary context for safe and informed use, especially given the complexity of deletion operations in a system like Float.

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 'phase_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 phase'), with additional context that it archives in Float. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive-project-task' by specifying it's for phases, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like 'delete-project' or 'delete-task'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., phase must exist), consequences, or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating or archiving through different means. The sibling list includes many deletion tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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