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 implies a mutation ('reorder' and 'updating'), suggesting it's not read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether changes are atomic or partial, error handling for invalid orders, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('reorder project tasks') and includes the method ('by updating their sort_order'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, atomicity), usage context, and expected outcomes. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('project_id' and 'task_order') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses these parameters for reordering, which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('reorder') and resource ('project tasks'), with the method specified ('by updating their sort_order'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-project-task' by focusing specifically on ordering rather than general updates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bulk-update-project-tasks' if that existed, though no such sibling is listed.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing tasks), exclusions, or compare with other tools like 'update-project-task' for individual updates or 'list-project-tasks' for viewing order. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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