float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires special permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation steps, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. The description should provide more context given the tool's potentially significant impact.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'timeoff_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 'Delete a time off entry' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (time off entry), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-time-off-type' or 'delete-logged-time' which also delete different resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are related tools like 'update-timeoff', 'reject-timeoff', and 'approve-timeoff' that might be alternatives in some workflows, but the description doesn't mention any of these or provide context about when deletion is appropriate versus other operations.

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