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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'decision-tree approach,' but this is vague and doesn't clarify critical traits like required permissions, mutation effects (e.g., whether 'delete' is reversible), rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with 41 parameters and operations like 'delete,' this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 relatively concise with two sentences, but it's not optimally structured. The first sentence is front-loaded with key information, but the second sentence adds vague terms like 'decision-tree approach' without clear value. Some parts feel redundant (e.g., 'Consolidated tool' and 'Handles all project-specific operations' overlap), reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (41 parameters, multiple operations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address how to map operations to entities, explain return values or error formats, or provide usage examples. For such a multifaceted tool, more detailed guidance is needed to help an AI agent invoke it correctly, making this inadequate.

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 description adds no specific meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., which parameters are relevant for each 'entity_type' and 'operation' combination) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate with additional context, such as clarifying the 'decision-tree approach' in terms of parameter usage.

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 states the tool manages 'project workflow entities (phases, milestones, project-tasks, allocations)' and handles 'project-specific operations including scheduling, task management, and resource allocation,' which provides a general purpose. However, it's vague about the specific actions (e.g., 'decision-tree approach' is unclear) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'manage-entity' or 'manage-time-tracking,' which could overlap in scope.

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 mentions 'Consolidated tool for managing project workflow entities' and 'Handles all project-specific operations,' but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify when to choose this over sibling tools like 'create-phase' or 'update-project-task,' or provide context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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