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. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. It only lists what can be updated, not how the update behaves.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating the different update categories, but it avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point without repetition.

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?

For a mutation tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects, error handling), usage guidance, and details about the response format. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more comprehensive documentation than what's provided.

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%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'timeline changes' (hinting at start_date/end_date), 'budget updates' (budget), 'status modifications' (status/active), and 'project configuration adjustments' (vague reference to other fields). This provides some high-level grouping but no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('update') and resource ('existing project'), specifying the types of information that can be updated (timeline changes, budget updates, status modifications, project configuration adjustments). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update-project-task' or 'update-phase', which also update related entities.

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 project ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new projects), or how it differs from sibling update tools like 'update-project-task' or 'update-phase'.

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