float-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the critical behavioral trait: that 'delete' actually archives the project (sets status to archived) rather than permanently deleting it, which preserves historical data and references. This is valuable context beyond what the input schema provides. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response looks like.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core action, and the second sentence provides crucial behavioral clarification about what 'delete' actually means. There's no wasted language or 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the key behavioral nuance (archiving vs permanent deletion). However, it doesn't cover important contextual elements like authentication requirements, error conditions, what happens to dependent resources, or what the response contains. Given the complexity of a deletion/archival operation, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (project_id and format) thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide extra value regarding parameter usage or constraints.

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 a project') and specifies the resource ('project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'archive-project-task' or 'delete-project-task' by focusing on entire projects. It provides specific detail about what 'delete' means in this context (archiving rather than permanent deletion).

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 implies usage context by explaining that deletion archives rather than permanently removes, suggesting it should be used when preserving historical data is important. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'update-project' to change status or other deletion tools for different resources, nor does it mention prerequisites or permissions needed.

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