float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions archiving in Float, which hints at non-permanent deletion, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or if there are side effects (e.g., dependencies, notifications). For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 communicates the core action and additional context (archiving in Float). It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key behavioral details.

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 insufficient. It lacks critical information about permissions, reversibility, error conditions, and what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, side effects). The mention of archiving is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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 'project_task_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 ('project task'), and specifies that it archives in Float, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'archive-project-task', which might cause confusion about whether these are distinct operations or synonyms.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'archive-project-task' (a direct sibling) or other deletion tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or consequences of deletion, leaving the agent without contextual usage information.

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