float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that deletion actually archives in Float (important behavioral nuance) and mentions a critical constraint about existing time off entries. However, it doesn't address permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to dependent data beyond the mentioned constraint.

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 states the core action with important nuance (archiving), the second provides a critical usage constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential information.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential 'what happens' (archives) and a key constraint. However, it lacks information about permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, what the response contains, or error conditions beyond the single constraint mentioned.

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 well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional 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 specific action ('Delete a time off type') and resource ('time off type in Float'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create-time-off-type' or 'update-time-off-type' by focusing on deletion/archiving. It provides precise scope information that sets it apart from similar operations.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('Cannot delete if time off entries exist for this type'), providing clear exclusion criteria. However, it doesn't mention when to use it versus alternatives like 'archive-project-task' or provide prerequisites for successful invocation beyond the constraint mentioned.

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