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 states the tool deletes and archives, which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or how the archive functions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's action and includes a useful behavioral note ('archives it in Float'). There is no wasted wording, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error handling), permissions needed, or how to verify the archive. Given the complexity of a delete operation, more context is required for safe and effective use.

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 'holiday_id' documented as 'The public holiday ID'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 public holiday'), with the specific detail that it 'archives it in Float' providing additional context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-project-task' or 'delete-team-holiday' beyond the resource type.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing the holiday ID from 'get-public-holiday' or 'list-public-holidays'), nor does it specify conditions for deletion versus other operations like 'update-public-holiday'.

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