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. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on related records), rate limits, or what the response looks like (since no output schema exists). For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no 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 sentence ('Update an existing allocation') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more structured by including key usage details, but as-is, it's appropriately concise for its limited content.

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 (a mutation tool with 10 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, provide usage guidelines, or detail what the tool returns. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description fails to address other critical context needed for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'task_id' as 'The allocation ID', 'billable' as 'Billable flag (0=non-billable, 1=billable)'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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 'Update an existing allocation' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('allocation'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of an allocation can be updated or distinguish this tool from other update tools like update-project or update-person, which are present in the sibling list. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation from similar tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing allocation ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new allocations vs. updating existing ones), or refer to sibling tools like create-allocation or delete-allocation. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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