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 phase' implies a write operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., on related project tasks), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies 12 potential fields, this is a significant transparency 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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the core action.

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 (12 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails, which fields are optional versus required beyond phase_id, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the tool returns. For a tool with this level of responsibility, more context is needed.

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 each parameter clearly documented in the schema itself (e.g., status values explained as 0=Draft, 1=Tentative, 2=Confirmed). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 phase' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'update-phase'. It provides no additional specificity about what aspects of a phase are updated or how this differs from other update tools like update-project or update-task. While it clearly indicates a mutation operation, it fails to distinguish itself meaningfully from sibling 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing phase_id), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like create-phase or delete-phase. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this lack of context is problematic.

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