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. It states 'update' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with 15 parameters and no output schema.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose immediately without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (15-parameter mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what fields are optional versus required beyond the schema, or how updates affect related entities. More context is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 15 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, constraints, or relationships between fields). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 project task' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('project task'), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-project' or 'update-task'. It specifies the target is 'existing' but lacks detail about what aspects can be updated.

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., needing a valid project_task_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'bulk-update-project-tasks' or 'reorder-project-tasks'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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