float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion archives the role in Float, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic action. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions (e.g., what happens if roles are still assigned), or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one stating the action and its effect, and another providing a critical usage note. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient 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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and a key prerequisite, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity of a destructive operation, more context 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%, with the parameter 'role_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 role') and the resource ('role'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-role' or 'get-role' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations (e.g., 'delete-project'), though the resource type is implied.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Roles assigned to users should be reassigned first.' This indicates a prerequisite condition for safe usage. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'update-role' or 'deactivate-account', but the context of deletion is well-defined.

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