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. 'Update an existing milestone' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a 16-parameter mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing about important operational characteristics.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise. There's no wasted text, but the single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful value beyond the tool name.

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 (16 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during an update, what values are returned, error handling, or any behavioral context. For a tool that modifies milestone data with many possible fields, the minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective agent 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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 16 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 milestone' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update-milestone'. It provides the verb 'update' and resource 'milestone', but lacks specificity about what fields can be updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'complete-milestone' or 'delete-milestone'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but doesn't distinguish this tool from alternatives.

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 milestone ID), when to choose this over 'create-milestone' or 'delete-milestone', or any context about typical update scenarios. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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