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 discloses that deletion archives the status, which is useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'delete'. However, it lacks critical details: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. 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 status') and adds clarifying context ('archives it in Float') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence serves a 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 incomplete. It mentions archival behavior but omits critical context: permission requirements, side effects, error conditions, or what the response contains. Given the complexity of a delete operation and lack of structured data, the description should provide more safety and behavioral guidance.

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 'status_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 status'), and specifies that deletion archives it in Float. This distinguishes it from permanent deletion tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'delete-' tools like delete-project or delete-task, which might have different archival behaviors.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), what happens if the status is in use, or whether there are recovery options. The description doesn't reference sibling tools like 'update-status' or 'get-status' for context.

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